Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110

Jonathan_f1 should be prohibited from editing Ireland-related articles

I propose that Jonathan_f1 be banned from editing articles relating to Ireland. He (I'm assuming) shows a bizarre and obsessive hatred of Ireland and tries to push his biased POV into articles pertaining to every stage of Irish history. I first noticed him on the Battle of Clontarf talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Clontarf#The_fake_%22debate%22) in which he, without evidence, writes, "One thousand years of "historiography"? How about 1,000 years of Irish myth-making vs 40 years of Irish historiography. Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" is being generous: academic history in Ireland is still in its infancy." Why is someone who shows total disdain for Irish scholarship and (going by his edits) seems to spend an enormous amount of his free time obsessing over Ireland allowed to clog up the talk pages of Ireland-related articles? Let him write comments on Youtube videos or something instead, he'd fit in more with the crowd there. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

To explicate the context, there was a dispute on the Battle of Clontarf page nearly a decade ago over whether the article should characterise the conflict as one (at least significantly) between Gaels and Vikings or as an entirely intra-Ireland affair. User:Scolaire cites two academic books in support of the former view, and eventually a section was added titled "Historical debate" on the article explaining the historiographical debate. In late August of this year User:Jonathan_f1 posted to the talk page, citing a 15-minute youtube video to not only support the notion of the battle intra-Ireland conflict but to argue that the "Historical debate" section should be removed entirely, replaced entirely with his opinion.

I believe that his aforementioned total dismissal of Irish historiography is grounds for permanently blocking him for editing Ireland-related articles. User:Jonathan_f1 shows open, sneering contempt for all Irish historians, which seems to be why he's willing to dismiss peer-reviewed books in favor of youtube videos when it sorts his anti-Irish POV. Someone who demands that his POV be made hegemony on the basis of youtube videos at the expense of academic sources, cannot be reasoned with. Someone who feels the need to use scarequotes when discussing even the concept of Irish historiography cannot be considered neutral on Ireland-related topics.

It also looks like he's been blocked for disruptive editing in the past. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

They're blocked from article-space now (since November 2020!). This is not particularly encouraging, either. JBL (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not surprising, so now I understand why all of the edits were confined to talk pages. What shocked me was how focused this user was on pushing his POV specifically related to Ireland despite an extreme contempt for the country; I mean, the guy is only willing to refer to Irish historiography in scarequotes. His total dismissal of Irish perspectives seems to create, for him, the justification to cherry pick his sources, such as when he tried to use a youtube video as a source over a peer reviewed paper in Talk:Battle_of_Clontarf#The_fake_"debate". I don't see how this person can be a productive contributor on Ireland-related topics. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In their (mild) defense, on at least one occasion since they were blocked, they seem to have been able to engage constructively with another editor on a topic related broadly to Ireland. Pinging @Bastun: in case they have anything to add. JBL (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw the edit that JBL referred to because the article is on my watchlist. It was wedged into a March 2021 thread, and it was tendentious throughout, including saying that "if some of these articles read like they were edited by Gerry Adams, it's because they probably were." Looking back on his recent contributions, I found this from Talk:Ireland in the Coalition Wars (in true Gerry Adams fashion, the lede states that Ireland was "ruled by the UK"), this from Talk:History of Ireland (1801–1923) (To describe this as a period of "British rule"...is egregiously non-neutral, probably the worst case of non-neutrality I've seen on here), this from the NPOV Noticeboard (this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here), this from Talk:Black and Tans (there is close to a 'zero' chance that historical articles on Ireland, particularly from the Early Modern Period on, are being edited neutrally), this from Talk:Young Ireland (Right, everyone is "ideologically driven" except the extreme nationalist slant that these articles take – this one wedged into a 2007 thread!), and so on.
On his talk page, I see he was blocked from mainspace, but allowed to edit talk pages to give him a chance to show he can work collaboratively. He has used this chance to edit every talk page tendentiously. It is time he was blocked altogether. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Guy, who imposed the block. Scolaire (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just discovered Guy hasn't been active for over fifteen months, so I'm pinging Floquenbeam, who was also involved in the block discussion. --Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be much help. I was going thru CAT:UNBLOCK, and involved only in the sense that I was responding to their unblock request, and tried to figure out Guy's rationale for the article-only block. I think the discussion is best explained here. If you read that, and follow the link in that discussion to this ANI thread, that probably explains most of it? After declining the unblock request to give Jonathan a chance to work in talk space for a while, I never paid further attention, so don't have any more info than that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(Responding to ping). I think my only interaction with the user concerned has been on the Irish slaves myth article, where they weren't the easiest to work with, but that's no crime and wouldn't merit a ban. That said, the diffs posted by Scolaire are fairly damning, given they happened when they were supposed to be working collaboratively. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a consensus is shaping up that User:Jonathan_f1 should be blocked or censured in some way for tendentious editing. The evidence shows that this behaviour is a longstanding pattern which has continued in spite of a partial block issued to reform it. His obsession with Ireland combined with his vitriol for the country makes it unlikely we'll see any changes. Look at this edit in which he writes "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous," and "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what. That might be why not one Irish history article thus far has been nominated as a good article." He later edited this into the (still tendentious and demeaning) form I quoted from above in this post, apparently realising that he gave too about himself away in his original post. User:Jonathan_f1 has a pattern of tendentious editing and an irrational hatred towards Ireland, both of which merit a permanent block. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the video I linked wasn't just a random Youtuber; it featured a talk by UCD professor Elva Johnston (about 1 min. in [1]), who is a qualified expert in the area of Early Medieval Ireland[2], and has produced award-winning scholarship on the topic of Irish ethnic identities in the Early Middle Ages. She disputes the nationalistic spin on Clontarf and even refers to a genealogy chart. The notion that Clontarf was perceived as the "home team" repelling a foreign invasion is preposterous -they were all related to each other!

Insofar as Irish historiography is concerned, there was no such thing in Medieval Ireland nor anywhere else, and we are not permitted to use 1000 year old sources on here. That's why I put historiography in quotes (which were not scare quotes, but more along the kind that jeer at the idea that there is any such thing as a 1000 year old academic consensus).

And finally, that certain Irish scholars are politically and/or psychologically compromised has been observed by not a few Irish historians. Liam Kennedy, who was qualified as an RS on the article Bastun and I worked on, wrote about this in his 2016 book Unhappy the Land, where he coined the acronym MOPE (most oppressed people ever) to describe the Irish victim complex. He writes: "There is an almost palpable sense of victimhood and exceptionalism in the presentation of the Irish national past.." and, “This beguiling [MOPE] framework, which speaks as much to the emotions as to reason, has been enormously influential in shaping historical thought on Ireland, both at the level of folk history and academic writing.”

This should send a signal that editors need to make a better effort in this space to balance controversial content as neutrally as possible, and in accordance with the encyclopedia's standards. That's unfortunately far from the case in too many of these articles (on request, I could cite whole articles in this space that have been bungled to the point where they need to be entirely rewritten).

Look, do whatever you want with me. I rarely edit talk pages these days and I've no intention of editing articles without consensus if/when the block is removed. But other editors should be advised that consensus is often all but impossible in this particular space.

Remember, propaganda is defined as any communication that's designed to bypass reason and rationality. It is not reasonable to believe that the leaders on both sides of Clontarf, who were all related to each other, viewed the other side as a foreign or alien threat. The only reason we're even discussing this is because the Irish (by no means all, but certainly a loud number of them) have an emotional need to believe that there was such a thing as a national character or identity in Medieval Ireland (before the English invasion), when the evidence just isn't there.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to believe someone would lie blatantly about evidence that is just linked above. You, User:Jonathan_f1, were not using quotes to reference 1,000 year old sources but to demean the whole field. You wrote, "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous," and "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what. That might be why not one Irish history article thus far has been nominated as a good article." This is an attack on the whole field of Irish historiography in very recent and indeed present times, not a dismissal of medieval scholars as you erroneously claim above. My original thesis which you have failed to disprove is that your contempt for Ireland and its scholarship means that you feel justified in dismissing any sources that don't conform to your (anti-Irish, anti-Nationalist) bias and cherrypicking any that do. I will elaborate below.

You did very much respond to peer-reviewed scholarship with a youtube video. While Johnston's peer reviewed scholarship would count as a reliable source, a social media interview that was edited, uploaded, and narrated by an anonymous youtube user is not. We have no idea who the interviewer/editor is (you certainly didn't list his credentials) and so we have no idea if he is accurately representing Dr. Johnston's perspective honestly. You're also ignoring that you were not only trying to use the youtube video as a source but as evidence that other Reliable Sources and the whole "Historical Debate" section of the Battle of Clontarf be removed from the article. User:Scolaire supported his position with two academic books; you wanted the article purged of everything that doesn't align rigidly with your POV on the basis of a youtube interview published by an anonymous rando.

In relation to the above paragraph and the debate on Clontarf, you also lied about this source, claiming it is "some obscure paper published by a physicist that supposedly lends credibility to the "popular" (read "nationalist") POV." This is a lie and a mischaracterization of the source and its reach. The source was an interdisciplinary network analysis of the most important original source text for the battle; far from just some physicist's opinion, dismissing this sophisticated application of scientific research to the humanities to a random physicist's opinion is lying. Given that a number of media outlets wrote articles about the piece it is actually one of the least obscure academic articles in the field of Early Medieval Irish history ever written.

As for the original debate about the Battle of Clontarf I actually haven't taken a side, except that the "Historical debate" section should stay up and the article shouldn't be scrubbed of everything that's not your POV.

Your obsession with and contempt for Ireland, its scholars, and the facts is obvious and merits a permanent block. Get off wikipedia and start writing youtube comments ComradeKublai (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ComradeKublai (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone misses my point about the youtube interview: professionally-made documentaries misrepresent scholars all the time, and we have no verification that the youtuber didn't. The interview still wasn't peer reviewed, of course. User:Jonathan_f1 was also not only trying to use it as a Relaible Source but to get other peer-reviewed sources removed from the article. ComradeKublai (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And finally, your reference to Liam Kennedy's book is the perfect example of the thesis I laid out in my first paragraph. You think that you have the right to dismiss and remove academic, reliable sources that contradict your POV because you read in another guy's book that they're inherently infected with a "nationalist bias." No one has an issue with using Kennedy's peer reviewed books and articles as sources, but you are NOT allowed use Kennedy as a justification to dismiss other peer reviewed sources whose conclusions contradict your POV. Sorry, but you don't get to remove Reliable Sources because Liam Kennedy says that Irish academics can be biased. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't remember exactly what was said on that talk page, but I do recall one editor (either you or someone else) telling another editor that there's "1000 years of historiography" supporting the traditional view of Clontarf. If a 1000 year old source is judged reliable then modern scholarship will say as much. But that doesn't represent a 1000 year continuity in historical thought and agreement.

Bear in mind I'm primarily responding to charges that I'm an audacious anti-Irish bigot for putting quotes around the word historiography and writing that Irish academic history is about 40 years old. On the second point I was referencing the great reboot that had occurred some time in the mid -late 20th Century, when Irish history books were essentially wiped clean and a 'new history' was written by so-called revisionists[3].

The network analysis, which you bandy about like it's an unmovable object, states in the abstract that "much modern scholarship disputes traditional perceptions." So if much modern scholarship disputes the traditional/populist pov, how does this one paper dispute much of modern scholarship? This can't be based on your opinion - you have to cite an RS that states there's been some type of sea change on this point.

And again returning to Youtube -the encyclopedia defines a source three ways, the work, the publisher of the work, and the author of the work. If a historian is a reliable source he/she may be quoted from either written work or speech.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have taken the acid out of your pen after coming under greater scrutiny.

Most of what you wrote does not my actual arguments. You should be able to remember what you wrote, given the diffs I linked, but I'll quote you again here. Your thread on the Talk:Battle of Clontarf was titled "the fake debate," in which you argued that your POV about the battle should be the only one represented in the article, arguing that the "Historical Debate" section should be removed entirely. I explained pretty thoroughly why your use of the youtube interview was problematic, especially belief that it justified the exclusion of other Reliable Sources, so you can read that again if you want to respond to it. You also didn't read my point about the Battle of Clontarf debate- I have not taken a position on it. Nor was I involved in the original debate. I was just shocked by your vitriol and dismissiveness, some of which you tried to edit out to cover up in subsequent edits (see here). It was the frequency and tendencity of your posts on Ireland-related talk pages after stumbling across that one that led me to make this thread.

I am again shocked how you can lie so blatantly about quotes of yours from a little over a month ago that I've already linked here. You wrote, "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous." This is not denigrating medieval fairy tales, its denigrating the entire field of Irish history, those are quite obviously scare quotes, and you aren't saying that the modern study or Irish history is 40 years old, your saying and the attack is obviously not limited to the distant past.

Ironically the source you linked actually removes all justification for your "40 years" claim. If you had read it to page 6 you would have realised that the "revisionist revolution" was started by scholars who went to graduate school in the 1930s. One of the most prominent revisionist historians, F.S.L. Lyons (mentioned in the book you and now I have just linked) died in 1983. I don't know whether you're spouting the nonsense that all of Irish historiography was nationalist polemics until the 1980's (and that's being "generous", remember) out of malice or ignorance, but I do know that you didn't read even the first few pages of the source you linked.

You are unwilling to seriously engage with this criticism and likely never will be. Hopefully the admins take action. ComradeKublai (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's unlikely that admins will take any action now. Your obsession with a single talk page post that was over a month old when you started this thread (and which I adequately answered at the time) means that the evidence I provided of ongoing tendentious editing on talk pages is unlikely even to be seen by admins. At any rate, Jonathan now says that he is not going to be editing talk pages, so the question of a block is now moot. Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What, pray tell, is so shocking here? I identified a deficiency in an article space, attempted to issue correctives in the talk sections, got nowhere, grew frustrated, exhausted and eventually gave up. There isn't anything shocking about this, so let's tone down the hyperbole please.

And yes I read my own source beyond p. 6, and I would recommend you do the same. On p. 20 for example:

"A third reason why the traditional interpretation of [18th Century] Irish history lasted so long is provided by the state of the Irish historical profession. In the years after 1922 academic life, in independent Ireland in particular, was severely underfunded, even by the standards of the day. Nor were universities immune from the culture of patronage that characterised other areas of Irish public life. Irish historians, in consequence, were relatively few in number, and not all of that number engaged in a great deal of research or writing. The result was a climate more favourable to the transmission of received ideas than to their critical examination."

And on the state of the discipline in the 1930s:

"It is of course true that the 1930s and 1940s were seen as the period when Irish historical writing was given new professional standards of accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity. But this was a revolution that took place along a very narrow front, in constitutional, administrative, and political history. New intellectual currents ..in the fields of economic history, social history, and the study of popular politics..were largely ignored."(p. 20)

He traces this historiographical transformation, from its primitive origins to something more academically rigorous, not to the 1930s, but no earlier than the mid 1960s with Louis Cullen's work in economic history (subsection III). It was Cullen who challenged the traditional view of the 18th Century Irish economy as being characterised by 'chronic poverty' (a perspective that's often regurgitated in Wiki articles with absolutely no balance or nuance).

Note that while this writing is zeroed in on Modern Irish history, the same tension between the "traditionalists" and "revisionists" very much applies to Early Medieval writing, as the abstract in your source indicates. Modern academic historical writing involves the critical examination of evidence, not merely rote transmission of stories by scribes. In the Irish Academy this process of modernisation began in earnest no earlier than the mid 1960s, and on closer inspection you'll learn that Irish revisionism didn't fully come of age until some time in the 1980s, about 15 years later (let's not get too caught up on the 40 year remark -even at 1965, we're talking about less than 60 years of rigorous academic analysis).

This should, you would think, lay to rest any accusation that my remarks were anti-Irish or any more demeaning than what Irish historians have themselves written about their own discipline. I was responding to another editor's claim that the traditional view of the Battle of Clontarf enjoys a "1000 year historical consensus", which was intended to intimidate another editor who was challenging the traditional narrative.

In fact there are other sources which describe in intricate detail the ways in which this millennium of so-called consensus has been severely marred by mythologies. In The battle of Clontarf, 1014: a millennium of historical perspectives, Colm Lennon makes the point that "..the events of Good Friday, 1014, have been incrusted with a millennium of mythology, making it very difficult for us to divine what exactly happened on that fateful day."[4]

And I do not, by the way, call for a "total dismissal of Irish historiography." I am saying that Irish sources should be scrutinised more carefully than they currently are.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

As someone who has been independent of this debate to date, I have to point out that having read your various contributions and comments here, I can't agree that you're simply "saying that Irish sources should be scrutinised more carefully than they currently are."

Your ideas on Irish historical revisionism are patently beside the point of modern historians having  different POVs on the topic, as that itself defines historical discourse and should not be equated with some presumed concensus on your part. It is also true that the issues  of revisionism within the study of history are certainly not restricted to Ireland with many of the same issues being found in the study of history prevailing in other countries.

You posit that "there actually isn't that much of a debate here" Futher claiming that. "The prevailing view among historians ....is that Clontarf was an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland (with Norse and Gaels on both sides) rather than a "united Ireland" under "one king" against "foreign invaders".

I will take it that you  actually don't know that some fifty years have passed since  Donnchadh Ó Corráin wrote that Clontarf ‘was not a  struggle between the Irish and the Norse for the sovereignty of Ireland’ but rather a revolt of the Leinstermen against ‘the domination of Brian . . . in which their Norse allies played an important but secondary role’?

Not only has study of the Viking period in Ireland continued apace in the period since then, but the idea that the battle of Clontarf was solely "an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland" has continued to evolve through continued research and academic scholarship.

As an example of this. Seán Duffy who is Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and is one of Ireland's foremost medieval historians, sets out in his 2014 book "Brian  Boru and the Battle of Clontarf" that Brian Boru not only had secured the high kingship of Ireland and that of his own legacy, but that his forces had also defeated the Danish threat and repelled the Viking invasion of Ireland.

Professor Duffy goes into significant  detail in the build up to the battle and  characterises it as a fight for a new kind of high-kingship of Ireland and a highly organised defence against those Vikings who were seeking new lands and dominance in Ireland. 

He concludes that Clontarf was deemed a triumph, despite Brian’s death, because of what he averted - a major new Viking offensive in Ireland

Despite your protestantions and the offering of a Youtube video featuring Dr. Elva Johnston of UCD (a video which seems to repeat Donnchadh Ó Corráin ideas from some 50 years previously), your personal  point of view doesn't  negate the fact that there are a range of current opinions on the High King of Ireland, Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf. If you have issue dealing with such a concept, may I suggest that history as a subject may not be best suited to your endeavours here. Btw I do also have to ask whether you recognise the part quote below taken from an article  on Medium which seems to have much the same approach to Irish-American  history as you appear to have  Irish history here? "I discredit Irish-American pseudo-history for a living (I run a monetized site" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogh Roith (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

One can only speculate as to where you've emerged from, although it is interesting that I had just got done discussing this dispute with an acquaintance of mine on Quora, and now here you are opining absolutely blindly about an issue you scarcely understand. Do you really think it isn't obvious that you just created a Wikipedia account today for the express purpose of jumping into this discussion? And you've also been trawling around the web looking for comments that I've posted on other websites? I don't interact on Medium and have no idea what a monetised website "debunking Irish-American history" is or supposed to be.

This noticeboard has very little to do with the historical debate over Clontarf; it's about an accusation that my edits on this site suggest a "consistent pattern of anti-Irish vitriol and hatred." And they have based this on specific language that I have used on talk pages, such as my description of the various retellings of Clontarf over the last millennium as "myth-making", and my remark that Irish academic history is still in its infancy (by "academic history" I mean the critical examination of primary and secondary sources, not scribes copying down stories). The problem for them is that all of these remarks, from how the Clontarf story has been shaped and re-shaped over the last 1000 years to the state of Ireland's history discipline in the 20th Century, are backed by reliable sources. It's the same language that Irish historians have themselves used to describe these issues.

If you want to learn about how (and why) the Battle of Clontarf was mythologised over the ages -first by Brian Boru's descendants, and then by Irish nationalists -here's another talk by Elva Johnston and three of her colleagues[5]. Note that Dr. Conor Mulvagh also uses the term "myth-making" in the same context (anti-Irish? please.).

Ireland did not exist, in the 11th Century, the way you think it existed. Ireland was not a polity, or an organised society of any kind, nor was Irish culture confined to the island -it was the culture of the Scottish Highlands, which were as "Irish" as Ireland proper in 1014. The Norse in Dublin, Waterford, Limerick etc had been there for hundreds of years by the turn of the 11th C. (they sacked Lambay Island in 795), had created thriving centres of commerce and trade, intermarried with the local populations and adopted Christianity and the Irish language. The battle had nothing to do with "Danish dominance of Ireland" (again, what "Ireland"?) and the leaders on both sides of the conflict had intimate relations with each other. This is not a "50 year old view" -it's arguably the dominant view of modern Irish historians while the version you've recited is a 200 year old nationalist spin linked to Young Irelanders in the 19th Century.

I'm not going to waste any more of this board's time lecturing you about Early Medieval history (this is, again, not what this board's for). And please stop stalking me on the internet. In addition to the creep factor, you are wasting your time -the only site I interact on is Quora, and even there it is sporadic and mainly a means to kill time. But you already knew that.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is so much that is simply wrong in what you write that I could spend weeks responding to each point. But to reply to what is relevant.

1. Academic istorians are not some monolithic block  engaged in group think as you seem to believe

2. If you believe Seán Duffy's (Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and is one of Ireland's foremost medieval historians) position on the topic and which I outlined as an example of  current  thinking, equates to "200 year old nationalist spin linked to Young Irelanders in the 19th Century". Then you simply need to remove yourself from the discussion  of Irish history before you embarrass yourself further.

You appear to be under serious misapprehension that I'm someone who has already been discussion with you on this topic. "Here you are again" &etc. You're wrong. And I didn't create an account "today". I created an account a number of days ago to add some content to an existing  article and in the process of doing so  noticed one of your contributions on the talk page. And from thence to here.

As to any "understanding" the topic at hand. In this thread there has been serious criticism levied against many of your  contributions and behaviour to date. And I agree in many ways with  what others have already  said there. See previous.

I'm quite aware the discussion is not about the history of the battle of Clontarf or indeed any history. In reply to your comment I provided an example of the position of revisionism (on that topic) to counter your claim that your POV is somehow the dominant one, as an excuse for your behaviour to date. You've ignored that and simply doubled down on your own personal POV.

Despite claiming this discussion  is not about history, I see you've taken the opportunity to lecture on that subject at length.  You also seem to be attacking the entire academic study of Irish history and with that tilting at windmills fighting arguments that are not proffered. For example I made no mention of the  "Danish dominance of Ireland" or indeed commented on whether you believe  or not Ireland existed in the 11th Century.

As to the quote from Medium. The reason I asked a question whether you were you familiar with that quote, was the individual who posted that, repeats many arguments very similar to your own over a number of other social  media sites.  Anyone who reads those sites will be more than familiar with that individual and their tirades on Irish history. I presumed incorrectly you would have came across that individual. If you haven't well thats ok.

To finish I'll again reiterate that  for the  reasons already outlined and your apparent lack of knowledge on ongoing historical research, then history as a subject really may not be the best suited to your endeavours Mogh Roith (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The debate section in the BoC article relies primarily on one source to back the traditional pov, a network analysis of the Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh (which was also sourced in the main Brian Buro article). One of the problems here (and there are many) is that the Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh (from now on CGG) is a piece of propaganda written a century after the battle, and belongs to a genre of writing known as medieval romanticism. There is actually a fairly robust consensus that the CGG is not a reliable source, that it was manipulated by Boru's descendants.[6]

So what is being waved around here as cutting-edge Clontarf science is nothing but a mathematical analysis of medieval romance literature. It's like performing network analysis on a Julia Quinn novel to find out what 'really' happened in Regency England (and even a JQ novel may be more accurate on that subject).

These bungling, buffoonish attempts to interpret scholarship don't end here. Sean Duffy, it's been argued, published more groundbreaking work in 2014, also challenging the revisionist narrative.

That an Irish historian emerged during the 1000 year commemoration of the battle with another attempt to justify the nationalist storyline is probably the most predictable and uninteresting thing that's happened in the last 60 years or so of Irish historical writing. Duffy didn't discover anything new or base his arguments on different source material; he used the same embellished and unreliable sources that nationalist historians have always deferred to, and committed the same logical errors (which I won't assess here). In a review of Duffy's work Catherine Swift writes, "It has to be said though, that [Sean Duffy's] work is very much a compilation and evaluation of what previous authors have written. Our inherited picture of Brian Boru is so very much one created by nationalist historiography of the later 19th Century.."[7].

What's more, the video I cited was dismissed as some "random Youtuber", when in fact it was part 1 of a two part series funded by the UCD School of History and Archives, also published during the BoC anniversary[8]. It featured Medievalist Elva Johnston and three of her colleagues who have expertise in areas like folklore and linguistics. That is in fact what a real "cross-disciplinary" team would look like in this type of scholarship -not mathematicians analysing propaganda, but experts in Early Medieval ethnic identities, language and folklore. A mathematician wouldn't know how to identify interpolations or embellishments in Medieval texts (they treated the CGG as if it's a reliable primary source which it's not).

Have a look at how a more sophisticated encyclopedia covered this subject[9]. Britannica's BoC article was edited by Denis Casey, a Cambridge trained Medievalist and the principal researcher for the TCD exhibition Duffy participated in.[10].

"Clontarf was mythologised within decades, gradually becoming viewed—simplistically and inaccurately—as an encounter between Christian Irish and pagan foreigners, and this titanic framing of the battle helped create the popular and scholarly view of Brian as Ireland’s greatest king."

And on the CGG:

"While the Irish annals provide the most reliable accounts of the battle, the most influential source for the long-term story of Clontarf is Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh (The War of the Irish with the Foreigners), a propagandistic biography of Brian written approximately a century after the battle. Cogadh begins by portraying Ireland as the victim of a series of unrelenting pagan Viking incursions that were heroically resisted by Brian’s dynasty.."''

So the network analysis cited in the BoC article on here analysed a document that was specifically embellished to say exactly what the network analysis found.

This would all be rather comical if you weren't actively engaged in trying to edit an encyclopedia.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This ANI thread has gone way off the rails, in large part due to my mistake (pointed out by User:Scolaire) of engaging User:Jonathan_f1 on the specifics of the Battle of Clontarf talk page instead of focusing on why this thread was actually made, the ongoing pattern of tendentious editing by User:Jonathan_f1 on talk pages when he was supposed to be working collaboratively (and having been blocked from editing articles for past tendentious editing). However, I would like to point out that even in this ANI thread User:Jonathan_f1 can't help but be tendentious, describing peer reviewed articles and books as "These bungling, buffoonish attempts to interpret scholarship don't end here", and acting as though he has the authority to completely dismiss Trinity College Dublin Professor of Medieval and Insular History Seán Duffy because of a book review he found and because Duffy and some of his colleagues disagree on some points. User:Jonathan_f1's tendentious and dismissive tendencies are perhaps best shown in this sentence: "That an Irish historian emerged during the 1000 year commemoration of the battle with another attempt to justify the nationalist storyline is probably the most predictable and uninteresting thing that's happened in the last 60 years or so of Irish historical writing." ComradeKublai (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not describe peer-reviewed articles and books that way. Editing an encyclopedia involves more than cherry-picking peer-reviewed articles that say whatever you want to believe; thousands of academic articles get published a day, some of high quality some not so much. Competent editors know how to evaluate scholarship and weigh the importance of an article/book in proportion to the rest of the field (a network analysis of a piece of propaganda is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article). Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm done explaining over and over again that my issue with you is your tendentiousness and dismissive attitude, and that I have not yet even taken a side in the Battle of Clontarf debate. The evidence of your tendentious editing is here for all to see, the admins will either act on it or they won't. ComradeKublai (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What you don't seem to grasp is that, regardless of whether or not you have an opinion on the article, you certainly have an opinion about me objecting to the way content was presented in the article. I've shown you numerous reliable sources in this ANI that have used the exact language I used to describe, for one, the past millennium of Clontarf storytelling -"myths", "myth-making", and "nationalist histories" etc - as well as the relatively recent origins of modern academic history in Ireland -it isn't nearly as old as some here have claimed. These are all quotes you have used to base your accusation that my edits show "hatred and vitriol for Ireland" -and yet there is nothing of any significance there. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder which sources you got, "this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here)", and "(there is close to a 'zero' chance that historical articles on Ireland, particularly from the Early Modern Period on, are being edited neutrally" from. Liam Kennedy again? ComradeKublai (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I would also bet that Professor Seán Duffy's colleagues at Trinity College Dublin are just dying to hear your assessment of the "logical errors" in his academic book, which you (wisely) spared above. ComradeKublai (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Like many out of the way subjects on here, Wikipedia is far from a reliable source for Irish history. I don't think that's an unfair statement or a violation of any rules. It's just one of those article spaces where most editors are either incompetent or non-neutral and no one's paying attention to it.

Insofar as Duffy's errors go -I'd love to get into it, but I don't think this is the place. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Could you two stop, please? This is undignified.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• That is an impressive wall of text. ComradeKublai, to address your original request, the editor is already blocked from editing all articles. I've looked at a few of their recent article talk contributions and it doesn't look like many are engaging with them, so it's not really been causing disruption? Pushing a POV in talk is really only hurting themselves, as each instance pushes the likelihood they'll be unblocked from article space a few more months into the future. If it actually becomes disruptive, maybe come back? Valereee (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced additions by Acervo Caruaru

Acervo Caruaru has added a fake Disney remake sequel for Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) with no confirmed sources. Any help with this situation is much appreciated as they’ve added it across multiple pages including List of Walt Disney Pictures films and Template:Disney's live-action adaptations of animated franchises. Thanks for the response. Friendly Mountain12 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Friendly Mountain12, the big bright goldenrod colored box in the edit window of this page requires you to notify any editor you report here. Since you did not do so, I have done it for you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but I'd call it more of a mustard color. EEng 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the same editor has created a spurious looking Wikidata item on the same supposed sequel, with no references there either: wikidata:Q113940392 WaggersTALK 11:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just about all of Acervo Caruaru's edits have been reverted. I'm minded to block as a vandalism-only account. Any other opinions? WaggersTALK 11:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Vergth was recently unblocked, but seems to be right back at it. Might be time for a TBan.

Block log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3AVergth&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

Recent edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYom_Kippur_War&type=revision&diff=1111135681&oldid=1111090789

75.27.153.239 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User keeps removing reliable information from scholarly, peer-reviewed sources

User:Skllagyook keeps removing scholarly, reliable, peer-reviewed material from the Bamileke people page, claiming that the present belief of their origin is fringe, but they have no evidence of the material being fringe. They also keep claiming that the information and the researchers are unreliable, but the research is peer-reviewed and published in scholarly journals. It is my belief that their personal opinion of the subject matter is outweighing the facts and sources that I have been presented on the Talk page. They also removed the information before we reached a consensus and refused to respond to the additional research found, that proves the origin is not a fringe belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuinanTheListener (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I note that more than one editor has removed what you keep adding. You added content to the page, it was reverted; you should have then discussed at the talk pag rather than attempting to reinsert the material. I see that a discussion (started by Skllagyook) is now taking place, but you should not be inserting your material again until there is a consensus to do so. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was not aware of that rule. They did inform me of that only in their last response, and I have not added it back. Howeve, I would like to note that when I did initially add it back, it was to add the updated sources. In the discussion, I have provided current, reliable sources from peer-reviewed journals and scholars in the field, which are also being ignored by Skllagyook. GuinanTheListener (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  • @GuinanTheListener: Early on, in one of my early edit summaries, I asked you not to edit war/reinstate your disputed material and to use the Talk page instead to reach consensus first. But you reinstated it anyway, after which followed a few-days-long Talk exchange. I did not ignore your sources. I explained in the Talk discussion more than once why they (including the updated sources you had added), or most of them (most of which were either by non-specialists, non-peer-reviewed, or both) seem to be problematic, and at the very least should not be represented as though they represent an established scholarly consensus as your edits represented them. And you have, for the most part not engaged with what I have tried to explain. I said in my last reply that it would be best to involve a third party (or at least one). I will also reply to tour last message in the Talk page later when I can. Skllagyook (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I engaged with every claim you've made about the sources not being reliable. I presented the credentials of reliable researchers, whose work is supported and cited by other specialists in the field, and a peer-reviewed journal, with more coming. You have not engaged at all with my question of why you considered the material fringe without presenting what you considered "the definitive mainstream academic opinion" to move the conversation forward in good faith. However, I agree that involving an unbiased third party would be most beneficial. GuinanTheListener (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    • • @GuinanTheListener: I have asked USER:Austronesier, who often edits on related topics, to take a look and they may reply in Talk later. I also messaged USER:Doug Weller. Skllagyook (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

        For the sake of transparency, I've read the exchanges between you, USER:Austronesier, and USER:Doug Weller. I do not believe they can serve as a non-biased third party, as their responses to you already show a clear point-of-view. GuinanTheListener (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

        You’re wrong. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      Also, it appears we've been debating two different things. I was under the impression that we were discussing the origin theory of the Bamileke people as a whole. If your stance is that there is no concrete evidence of where exactly the Bamileke language began, I agree with that stance. Even Blench states that experts in the field can't state with certainty where it and some of the other Bantoid languages originated. GuinanTheListener (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      If you get consensus on the talk page first I won’t block you from the article. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Skllagyook: You shouldn't have pinged me though. I usually respond to alerts in WP:FTN, WP:RSN and also the project pages WT:LANG and WT:ETHNIC about fringe pushing and WP:CIR-issues in language and ethnicity-related topics, but now I've been cast into the canvassed–biased corner ;) -Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Austronesier: I'm not sure I understand. I did not expect an ANI report to be made about this by Guinan. I had told them I would try to involve a try try find a third party and wished to avoid a report. And then they reported me. But perhaps pinging you here was a mistake (I did not know). And if it is problematic/inappropriate, my apologies. I was going to wait for you to weigh in on the Talk page, then reply to Guinian as well (or perhaps reply myself before you did), and then, depending on the outcome, possibly go to WP:FTN. Are you no longer able to participate in the Talk discussion as a result of my pinging you here? Skllagyook (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Skllagyook: No, feel free to ping me when you believe my expertise (which is historical linguistics and Insular SE Asia-related topics) can contribute to a discussion. Doug Weller regularly does so. Certain people may construe this as WP:canvassing since defending the position of mainstream scholarship can be perceived as biased—that's a common rhetoric strategy encountered in fringe topics. –Austronesier (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Austronesier: I see. Thank you for the clarification. But would your area (about which it's ok to pinge you) also include historical linguistics generally, or only that of Asia and not other regions? I also noticed that you have edited on the topic of population genetics. Skllagyook (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a specialist on the subject, I don't even have an interest in it, so I will not comment about content. I will, however, point out that International Journal of Humanities and Social Science and English Language, Literature & Culture, two sources cited by the OP, are well known as predatory journals, that is, they charge authors to have their works published, they do not offer editing services (or charge for them), and despite their claim of peer review, no such thing happens. You could potentially publish a bunch of rubbish under a made up name like Biggus Dickus and I'm not sure they would care.

Also, the claim of you being in touch with France's Department of Culture is far-fetched, but not nearly as far-fetched as them [allegedly] replying in the name of "historians, cultural anthropologists and researchers across Africa, France, Canada and China".

As I mentioned, I'm not commenting on content, but judging by the quality of the sources and the grandiloquent claims, either the OP is trying to consciously sell snake oil, or he is absolutely and naïvely convinced that he struck gold with a fringe theory but is actually being taken for a ride. Either way, this could well WP:BOOMERANG on him. Ostalgia (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The articles I was referred to, am currently working my way through and translating are indeed from historians, cultural anthropologists and researchers across Africa, France, Canada and China. These countries appear to have completed the most cultural research on the Bamileke people. I personally have not read any mentions of these journals being problematic nor questionable from any source, reputable or otherwise. But if you have, can you please post links to the claims here? I'm all about receiving new information in order to maintain an accurate POV. GuinanTheListener (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not doubt the possibility that people from those countries or regions might have conducted research on the Bamileke people, but about an institution, any institution, claiming to speak for them. That doesn't happen. As for the journals being problematic, you'll find that their publishing houses both show up on Beall's List. Now the list isn't without its detractors, but you'll also find that one of the aforementioned journals is published by Science Publishing Group, whose infamy has apparently led to them not only being afforded their own Wikipedia page, but being outright blacklisted from Wikipedia (you can't post links to their website, or that of their journals, at all). The other is just as bad, and a look at their website (International Journal of Humanities and Social Science), while not the most "scientific" method, raises a few eyebrows by itself - they can't even spell their name right in the low-quality, bizarre picture that serves as the centrepiece of their main page.

After Beall's list stopped being updated in 2017, other alternatives popped up, like Cabell's blacklist, but it's under a paywall (I don't think anyone outside institutions pays for it). Having knowledgeable and experienced people around you should help you detect these predatory deals. Most academics, at various points in their career (especially at the start), get emails from these dodgy journals offering to publish their work (I know I have!). If you have any luck, your colleagues, your doctoral advisor or anyone more experienced will tell you not to touch them with a stick, and you learn as you go. At some point you start going a bit by gut yourself. I'm afraid I don't have magic, free, self-updating tool I can provide you (if someone does, by all means, let them share!).

As for inserting links to articles on Wikipedia, you add a pair of brackets [[]] on either side of the article name. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, the way you were able to create a hyperlink for (WP:BOOMERANG), can you show me how you did that? I've been copying and pasting them, but I don't yet know how to create them myself. GuinanTheListener (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@GuinanTheListener: see H:WIKILINK but I suggest you ask at WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk for basic editing questions like this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! GuinanTheListener (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll look into the journal more in-depth. The particular article I was referred to seems well-referenced and accurate. They were the only place I was able to find it in English. Also, the rep from the department of culture also didn't claim to speak for the researchers nor the Bamileke people. They only provided me with some of the research they had on the Bamileke and some other academic resources that I could look to for more information. They didn't seem to have an issue assisting. And thanks for the bracket tip! GuinanTheListener (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Third cross wiki harrassment against me by W200

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

---

He continues.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As this seems to be a relatively static IP (the only edits from it in the last 3 years are from this user) I see no problem with making an extended block. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit before submitting: good on Ymblanter for beating me to the 3 year punch. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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

IP vandal at Carlos Maza

In this diff, an IP added the profession of "grifter" to the infobox on Carlos Maza. The same IP editor is also edit warring to remove a large paragraph of text about Steven Crowder's harassment of Carlos Maza. Said IP editor has already been warned on their talk page by a different editor. Loki (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

They appear to have gone away. If they return, consider reporting to WP:AIV or, if there is persistent disruption by multiple IPs, request protection at WP:RFPP. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeated change of a map without any discussion on the talk page by User:Tamilpadai

Regading Chola dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have revised the change made by User:User23445 of the map on the info box (File:Rajendra map new.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:Chola Empire map corrected-01.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) as the editor has not made an effort to discuss the matter on the relevant section of the talk page of the Chola dynasty, under == Conquest of Sri Lanka; Disputable content ==. Also, User:User23445's the edit summary was not made in good faith and was with contempt.

Edit summary of User:User23445
“replaced fantasy map with a more accurate map”'

Then User:Tamilpadai repeatedly reverted this change without attempting any discussion on the talk page and not reaching any consensus. I believe his changes are primarily based on his viewpoints, and he did not attempt to make a genuine discussion on the topic. So I need admin help on this.

Also, my last revert is not visible on the page.

Thank you for your time on this matter

Lipwe (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced and junk edits to WP:BLPs

• Potenza2021 (talk · contribs)

A plethora of BLP violations and throwaway edits ("one of the most famous female Italian singers, " etc). If not worthy of a block to slow them down, then at least some more eyes will be appreciated in combing through their backlog of edits. Most recently they've waded into bios of Elton John and Madonna to add, well, nothing of substance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just told the IP that a great part of informations I have added are also sourced on it wiki.--Potenza2021 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. They may mean well but WP:CIR applies when their English is so poor. I've informed them of this in a friendly way. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That's appropriate. Black Kite. Meanwhile, they've damaged articles I can't touch, like English Wikipedia, so any assistance tracking these down will be great. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, lest they be led to believe this was merely a language issue, it was not. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible BLP vandalism by IP 128.6.37.124

What seemed benign but misguided edits at first, this user's edits appear to be adding as many mentions to the name Chris W Chan (the person related to Kiwi Farms) in as many "likely" places as possible through the use of fake or dubious sources, see [11], [12] and [13]. I imagine a block is warranted. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 00:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ☝️

isabelle 128.6.37.124 (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for using Wikipedia as a platform for harassment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding false negative material and BLP vios to a sanctioned article

• Bored Ape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guydebordgame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Guydebordgame has been adding false negative information to Bored Ape, and edit-warring over these additions, since September 17. He has ignored or disparaged several attempts on the talkpage (beginning September 18) to get him to abide by Wikipedia policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:V), gain consensus, and make sure his edits are verified in citations [14].

Because the article is under Community Sanctions and restricted to 1RR, and the user is edit-warring and doubling down instead of listening, I am bringing the issue here.

Negative inaccurate edits and BLP vios on Bored Ape:

• [15] "Crack cocaine addict" (the citation instead says this co-founder had addictions for a couple of years in his early teens and they ended when he was 15)
• [16] (reverted removal) re-added "Crack cocaine addict"
• [17] re-added "crack cocaine addict", in a new sentence; still inaccurate, still undue, cherry-picked, and a BLP violation. (The citation instead says that before co-founding Bored Ape, Aronow was [planning to get an MFA but fell ill and became] a cryptocurrency trader.)
• [18] "The ADL has stated that several of the traits in the collection are problematic and racist towards black people and Japanese people." (Instead, the citation refers to two senior research fellows at ADL [Pitcavage and Hill], both of whom refute Ripps' claims of racism, although they note that, out of context, 2 of the 10,000 ape images are problematic and that "a very small subset" is "clearly offensive" taken out of context.)
• [19] "banned in many countries for being child pornography" (The citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
• [20] (reverted removal) re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
• [21] "where users commonly 'draw dicks,' according to the founder." (Not at all what the citation says; not even an accurate quote even though it's in quotation marks. The citation mentions a concept of an unnamed shared blank digital canvas that was apparently abandoned because the founders didn't want people drawing problematical stuff.)
• [22] (reverted removal) re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the existing citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere. Guydebordgame added to that an unreliable citation which falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film rather than the album and which links to an unrelated 2015 Canadian court filing which does not mention Bored Ape or the album the pseudonym is named for, and although the court filing mentions the film and says that a police officer had said that based on description one or two scenes in the film were "bordeline child pornography", the court filing says nothing about the film being "banned in many countries".)
• [23] (reverted removal) re-re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (see above for detailed explanation).

Again, since the article is under sanctions and the user is edit-warring every time his false negative material is reverted, even with clear explanations in the edit summary and on the talkpage, I'm bringing this here. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC); diffs added to 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now added another diff as Guydebordgame is contimuing to edit war on this 1RR article over his false information and is refusing to gain consensus. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Isabelle Belato and ASpacemanFalls, who have been editing the article somewhat regurlarly recently, to see if they have any comments. Also Hesperian Nguyen, who apparently has considerable experience with this editor (but may be currently off wiki and not see this). 64.64.172.66 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure this is an urgent issue at the moment, but from checking the article's history, it does seem like Guydebordgame is involved in a slow edit war to add that one information about the movie. Their interaction with other users in the talk page, which I've warned them about, also makes me think they want to right some wrongs. I hope a stern warning will course-correct them. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As a note, after my posting here Guydebordgame again added information to the article that had been disputed before, here. If this behavior continues and the user fails to take this thread's warning to heart, then a page block might be for the best. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I'd also agree that a warning is sufficient for now. In regards to the movie, it seems that tidbit about the ban is taken from its own Wikipedia page, which only sources that with a PDF filing, which only concerns Canada. So it might also be helpful to get rid of that claim on the film's own page or, at least, amend it to reflect that one country considers it "objectionable". ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Guydebordgame has now breached 1RR on this sanctioned article and has been reported at ANEW: [24]. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

are there any wiki mods here? please somebody check this user 64.64.172.66 and their obsessive desire to remove well documetented facts about child pornography in the film emperor tomato ketchup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Guydebordgame blocked indef for personal attacks, as explained here. There's been parallel edit-warring at Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film). Someone might want to take a look at whether sources verify the current content of that article. The Reddit source doesn't look very promising... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have checked all of those citations and they do not verify or confirm, so I will revert that on the film article. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, Guydebordgame appears to have created a very obvious sockpuppet within 24 hours of being blocked, and is restoring his claims on that Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film) article. What should be done? 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We do have some LTAs that like to joe-job people in cases like this, so I'm not 100% sure they're a sock, but either way, indeffed and reverted. If any further potential sox spring up, I'll request a check. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

46.17x airport article disruption

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

46.177.213.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – unexplained deletions after final warning, including: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Adakiko (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is in fact a whole series of IPs involved in this. So far I have seen: 46.176.69.25 - 46.177.222.145 - 46.176.78.200 - 46.176.75.107 - 46.177.47.120 - 46.177.60.36 - 46.177.47.127 - 46.176.84.102 - 46.176.85.205 - 46.177.206.58 - 46.177.207.194 - 46.176.65.242 - 46.177.210.142. With suspicion towards the blocked user XB12345. The Banner talk 08:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Contribution links:

• • 46.177.213.79
  • 46.176.69.25
  • 46.177.222.145
  • 46.176.78.200
  • 46.176.75.107
  • 46.177.47.120
  • 46.177.47.120
  • 46.177.60.36
  • 46.177.47.127
  • 46.176.84.102
  • 46.176.85.205
  • 46.177.206.58
  • 46.177.207.194
  • 46.176.65.242
  • 46.177.210.142
• XB12345 (talk · contribs)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess one needs to identify the range and block it if possible. Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a /15. An edit filter might be an option, or two /16 partial blocks. The amount of involved pages makes a partial block impractical, too, though. I haven't looked into this deeply, but it seemed complicated enough to move it here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In general, the common thing between the IPs is this: Removes links to other Greek airports even when referenced. Removes maintenance templates (source requests) from Thessaloniki Airport and from links to this airport. Also removes random links from other Greek airports. Has the opinion that suspended routes to Russian airports are cut. Recently the IPs went into removing suspended destinations from other airlines as if they were already cut. The Banner talk 11:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Todays IP is here: 46.176.70.129. The Banner talk 08:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And todays (Friday) IP is [25]. The Banner talk 08:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Last active IP received a courtesy notification about this discussion. The Banner talk 14:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Well, that cluster of IPs is a /19 and a /16. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Back In August, Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) placed a one year block on the /19 range 46.177.0.0/19 . EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Various reverts on Kherson Oblast (Russia), Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and aggressive talk against other users on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) and edit summaries. Couldn't tell how much times his reverts and aggressive talk happened. Definitely wp:nothere. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction wp:battleground. Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(dublicate from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of main title and infobox of article) In the discussion of these articles, this user behaves extremely aggressively, and threatens with permanent bans to those who oppose his position. Please restrict this user from discussions and editing articles for a while. (I admit that my behavior was not ideal either) PLATEL (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The two articles are full of fake information, unsourced text and border on or are outright WP:HOAXes. No such oblasts exist. Let me be perfectly clear: I don't mean that these oblasts of Russia are "illegal" or that they're "illegitimate" or anything of the sort. I mean, simply, they do not exist. They were not created. They were not established. Their existence was invented wholesale by a Wikipedia editor a few days ago. Even if you think that Russia's cause is 100% just and that Putin is the messiah, it's still the case that these. Oblasts. Don't. Exist.

Maybe they will in the future and then we can argue about their legality or legitimacy. But when the article was created and as of this writing, they do not exist. The flag was invented (flag from 19th century). The governor was invented (the head of the occupation administration was falsely designated as "governor"). All the other details of these non-existent oblasts were invented.

Yes, Russia claims to have annexed these regions. We have an article for that: Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. But annexation is not the same thing as an oblast existing. This is like if someone created an article on Puerto Rico (US state). Even if you think that Puerto Rico should be a state or that it's territory is 100% US, doesn't make it into a US state. Same thing here.

I've removed unsourced info from the article. Since it's about a non-existent entity, that means that yes, most of the text was removed. The fact that not much is left is not my problem - it's kind of hard to write an article about something which doesn't exist, so sources don't exist either. Unsourced text can and should be removed, especially when it constitutes false information.

Frankly, everyone who is trying to restore this unsourced fake info should be deeply ashamed of themselves and should ask themselves why exactly they're fighting to restore fake info. What exactly is the motivation for this kind of behavior?

If we're going to go with WP:NOTHERE I'm gonna hazard the suggestion that it's actually the editor who created an article on a fake entity and all the accounts (many of them throw away IPs or just-created-throw-away accounts) who are trying to preserve this WP:HOAX that are not here to build an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 14:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If Puerto Rico and the US authorities had signed a document on the entry of Puerto Rico into the United States, then this article would have been written by me and other Wikipedians.

The authorities of the Kherson Region established by Russia signed together with the President of Russia a document on the entry of the Kherson Region into Russia. Now the regions are in the process of de jure registration. This does not mean that the Kherson Region has disappeared.PLATEL (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico IS part of US!!! Jfc. Volunteer Marek 14:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is not a state. I may not have formulated my statement correctly, but I meant exactly about becoming a state of Puerto Rico. PLATEL (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't a SINGLE source in either article about either of these territories "becoming an oblast of Russia" or anything remotely similar. That's because no such sources exist since the existence of these oblasts was invented by you. Volunteer Marek 14:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Kherson Oblast is a part of Russia?[26]

At the moment, the decree has been signed by President on camera and is in the process of ratification. Yesterday it was ratified by the Constitutional Court, and today by the State Duma.

I added one source and put the template "in creation". The source was a Reuters article. Other sources were added by other Wikipedians, for which I am grateful to them. PLATEL (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a Russian "Kherson Oblast". There are NO sources, even pro-Russian ones, which say there is. Yes, Russia claimed to annex the Ukrainian Kherson oblast but it has NOT established (yet) a Russian Kherson Oblast. You made it up. And "at the moment" doesn't address the fact that you created this FOUR DAYS ago. There were and there are no sources which support any of this (because it's simply not true), Reuters or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

please don't attribute to me what I didn't do. I did not come up with the annexation of regions. I, acting according to logic, wrote about the fact that the REGION JOINED TO RUSSIA BECOMES THE REGION OF RUSSIA. you are trying to say that the REGION JOINED TO RUSSIA DISAPPEARS, as if it is being devoured by a black hole. PLATEL (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is the second time you're trying to pull this innocent act. No. You did not write about a "region joined to russia becoming the region of russia". Here is the initial state of the article you created [27] where you falsely claim that Kherson was an oblast of Russia. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, this really does need extra eyes because the whole situation is completely ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 14:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You can also see the discussion here for some related issues. User:PhotogenicScientist summed it up pretty nicely here. Basically, some pro-Putin accounts on Wikipedia jumped the gun and made up Russian "oblasts" before these were actually established (indeed, before the ink was dry on the annexation treaty). Essentially more Russian-nationalist than Putin himself. You expect this kind of nonsense on Reddit or Twitter but here on Wikipedia it's just an embarrassment which is why I removed it (again, text I removed was unsourced or off topic irrelevancies). Volunteer Marek 14:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I was a member of the Russian Socialist Movement and went to anti-Putin rallies. You attack me, calling me "a greater nationalist than Putin." You should be banned for such boorish behavior. PLATEL (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You created a fake article about a fake oblast before Putin could even establish one. Volunteer Marek 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Putin did not establish the Republic of Crimea, but "adopted it as part of Russia"

Putin will never establish the Kherson Region, because he has already "adopted it as part of Russia" PLATEL (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Beshogur, if you're gonna accuse a veteran editor of being [d]efinitely wp:nothere, you better have WP:DIFFs to support such an extreme claim. Otherwise, it is a violation of WP:ASPERSION, which may be sanctionable. Thanks. El_C 14:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: Where should I begin. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia), accusing users of using multiple accounts, using CAPS, bold, words like "lol", "bullshit", "ffs", calling everything "fake/hoax", and falsely removing stuff claiming it is unsourced, like on Kherson Oblast (Russia). Also, apparently putting a de facto tag are "attempts at legitimizing Russian aggression". I have edited on various unrecognized entities, never seen such thing placing a de facto control being an attempt to legitimize something. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Going to echo EL C here - you need to provide links to specific WP:DIFFS to substantiate your assertions.

  While your link on "de facto" was a good example of this, that doesn't seem like evidence of incivility or a personal attack; rather, an editor stating a differing opinion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Don't think accusing others of attempts "at legitimizing Russian aggression" is an opinion. That's simply accusation. Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Yeah? And what about "falsely removing stuff claiming it is unsourced"? That is an accusation. And a false one. I'm gonna ask you to back this one up or strike it. Volunteer Marek 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to pretend that this user [28] (there are a couple more from them) wasn't abusing multiple accounts?

And please, show me, what did I "falsely remove claiming it is unsourced"? This is 100% false.

And yes, the article is indeed fake and a hoax. That's why it was almost entirely unsourced (aside from some off topic sections). Volunteer Marek 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur, that is not evidence of Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, which is what the WP:NOTHERE shortcut links to. El_C 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Treating editing as a battleground is tho? Did you check his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia)? Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I have not, but WP:BATTLEGROUND is not the same as WP:NOTHERE. El_C 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Ok my apologies. Can I correct? Beshogur (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct what? You've shown diffs displaying some incivility that's not great, but not sanctionable, either. I'd advise Volunteer Marek to dial it back, and also maybe not respond to every single comment here, but he doesn't really listen to me. El_C 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I did. Once. Then you made me sad. But thanks for protecting the page. Volunteer Marek 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadness is a two-way street. But you're welcome. El_C 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Essentially this is pro-Russian bullshit. I imagine at some point there will be some Russian formal incorporation of Putin's fever dreams, but its not there yet. And may never be given the rate the Russian's are running away and/or surrendering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't JUST "pro-Russian bullshit" (it is), it's 100% FAKE bullshit. It's made up. There are ZERO sources to support the existence of these invented entities. It's not just WP:POV, it's WP:HOAX. But several accounts are edit warring to keep it because they're more pro-Putin than Putin himself.

The article really needs to be reverted back to the version with all unsourced text (including in the infobox) removed and locked. Volunteer Marek 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

please remain neutral in this discussion. I do not consider myself a Putinist, but I created that article not for the sake of intoxication of my own propaganda fantasies, but because of the signing of an agreement on the accession of the Kherson region to Russia between the authorities established by Russia and controlling most of the region, and Russia, which automatically makes the Kherson region a part of Russia. PLATEL (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What ever happened to reliable independent secondary sources? Wikipedia doesn't report on every piece of paper signed by countries across the world just because you see it on tv. We need those sources. VM says they don't exist. I have to agree. Provide the independent reliable sources or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Because we know the physical papers exist means it is still OR. The political back and forth does need to stop though. It's not very collaborative. --ARoseWolf 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't even about politics at this point. It's, as you say "reliable independent secondary sources". Or even ANY sources. I removed UNSOURCED text which presented false info. Even if you think Russia is the most awesome thing ever, the info here is still fake and unsourced. Volunteer Marek 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Article 2 of the document "Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kherson region on the admission of the Kherson Oblast to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject within the Russian Federation dated 30 September 2022 (temporarily applied from 30 September 2022)" states:

"From the day the Kherson Oblast was admitted to the Russian Federation, a new subject is formed as part of the Russian Federation - the Kherson Oblast."

Article 1 reads:

"Kherson Oblast is considered to be accepted into the Russian Federation from the date of signing this treaty." PLATEL (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

source for all regions for kherson media 1 media 2 media 3 PLATEL (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time that some actual (primary, but still) sources have been presented that this is anything more than a figment of your imagination. And this is back dated - it came out today but you created this article four days ago. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I created this article after signing treaties officially created before September 30th and signed on September 30th. These treaties say that Kherson becomes a Oblast of Russia after the signing of these treaties.PLATEL (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? And since the text of these treatises was just released today (like literally minutes ago), how did you manage to create that article based on the text of these treaties four days ago? Volunteer Marek 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am neutral, being neither Russian nor Ukrainian and have no dog in this fight. You on the other hand are Russian and trying to insert content based on a premise which almost the entire rest of the world (apart from Belarussian lapdogs) sees as laughable. RE ARoseWolf above: Fundamentally its difficult to steal/annex a region and announce its geographic borders when you dont even know what the borders are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

>neutral

>lapdogs

ok.

Article 4 of the document "Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kherson region on the admission of the Kherson Oblast to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject within the Russian Federation dated 30 September 2022 (temporarily applied from 30 September 2022)" states:

1. The boundaries of the territory of the Kherson region are determined by the boundaries of the territory of the Kherson region that existed on the day of its formation and the day the Kherson region was admitted to the Russian Federation and a new subject was formed as part of the Russian Federation. PLATEL (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but all of that is moot. We have policies requiring the inclusion of inline citations referencing reliable independent secondary sources. Without this information can not be included. I'm not interested in the Russian vs Ukrainian/World POV on this. If it's found in reliable sources then it belongs, if not then it doesn't. Clear and precise. Motives don't matter and there is no reason to be uncivil when policy is on your side. --ARoseWolf 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@PLATEL, notice how I said secondary. The Russian government documents you link to are primary and unreliable therefore they can not be used. That has been consensus for all government documents for as long as I have can remember reading about. They can be used for certain biographical details or matter-of-fact statements but the annexation of these regions are not matter-of-fact in any way shape or form. You will have to find other sources. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ok [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] PLATEL (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion whether it's real or not somewhere else please. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No. That is the crux of the matter. You restored unsourced, fake (as in "not real") text to an article, which makes it essentially a WP:HOAX. This is the kind of stuff people get indef'd for, per WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ok PLATEL (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

primary court source secondary source PLATEL (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The "court source" does not support your claim. The "secondary source" was not in the article... because it's brand new (and unreliable). Volunteer Marek 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, apparently the joys of editing articles with Volunteer Marek aren't only my own. I spent a good two and a half weeks discussing with this person on the article on Simferopol.

• The discussion. After a (now blocked) user had consistently tried to alter the lead, and I and other users tried to maintain the consensus version, Marek introduced some changes to the article, removing all references to "de facto" Russian control, and almost all to the word "annexation", even renaming the subsection on the subject, complaining that it was PoV pushing and whatnot. After that I tried to introduce a new version, and opened a talk page discussion to try and resolve the issue, pinging all of the users involved (the blocked user, Marek, and user:Mellk. I was immediately accused of pushing "Russian nationalist disinformation" and of violating NPOV, while he at the same time denied that there was a territorial dispute. Marek also justified his removal of the term annexation because "Russia annexed it in its own imagination", and accused those who disagreed with him of trying to obscure the fact that Crimea is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine (which is false as it is present in the lead in all versions). At the same time, on the main article, after edit warring with another user for 2 days he accused him of trying to ""conquer" cities for Russia on Wikipedia". I also provided sources to support my assertion that the territory was considered disputed (including Wikipedia's own list of disputed territories), and that using the term "annexed" was in accordance to NPOV. At this point, in spite of the fact that he had removed the word annexed from his edits, Marek insisted that he didn't actually have a problem with it, but with the use of the terms "administer" (which is false, since my version, which he reverted, referred to Russia's control), and particularly "de jure" and "de facto", which he called "a pure Wikipedia invention and unsourced". My reply was all but ignored and he dismissed the sources as being too few, but when I posted more, he just ignored them. After a while he opened a new section of the talk page, were he once again tried to dishonestly frame the discussion by claiming that Mellk and I were insisting that "Crimea is part of Russia", which at no point was true, and then posted a list of four, as he called them, "random cities", to show that all of them had the name of their country in the first sentence. This was his "evidence" that we were apparently claiming Crimea for Russia. Of course, none of the four cities were in conflict zones, or in the middle of territorial disputes (it's quite ironic given that the entire talk page discussion virtually opened with me giving the example of Nagorno-Karabakh to try and provide a frame for discussion but he rejected it per WP:OTHERSTUFF). I replied by showing him the examples of three cities in similar situations to Simferopol, namely Stepanakert, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, all capitals of disputed territories, to show him the rationale behind my edits of the article. After that he more or less stopped intervening in the talk page until today. He went for a brief edit war with Mellk while taunting him in the edit summaries, slapped a tag on the article as "presenting Russian nationalist disinformation" and at one point reverted two edits, including a completely harmless addition to the "Notable people" section. Now he's back to reverting. As an aside, there was a single account who came out in defense of Marek's position (an editor who hadn't edited the article in 15 years!), first to point out that Marek's position was not a personal PoV but "quite popular outside Wikipedia", and a second time to suggest that edits by user:Seryo93 be disregarded on account of him being biased due to being Russian. It should be pointed out that Seryo93 presented his own version (i.e. he didn't support mine, and I didn't base mine on his) and based his edits on a book published by academic publisher Routledge. When he was reverted the source was replaced by "Voice of Russia". Oh the irony.

This is the version Marek considers to be "blatant Russian propaganda". If an admin considers it is, by all means, indef me.

• Personal attacks deserve comment. There was no shortage of them. In a previous edit I suggested he was immature and stonewalling, to which he retorted (present in a diff mentioned above) by accusing me of being a "WP:SPA sleeper account that only activated itself in April after this war started" and of not having enough edits to intervene in controversial topics. He implied that Mellk and I were working together in blatantly pushing a (ultra nationalist, irredentist, Putinist) POV. Previously he had implied that I was probably a sockpuppet. On another exchange he accused my position of being "100% bullshit" (which, unironically, is the nicest thing he said about me or my sources throughout the entire discussion) and me personally of being "a WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE". Since he insisted in accusing me of being a SPA, I repeatedly pressed him to have him tell me what my "single purpose" was, to which he finally replied that it was pushing "PoV, OR, nationalist, irredentist. Unsourced". This despite posting some 15 different sources, all Western, including the NATO website, a speech by Boris Johnson, the Brookings Institution and others. On my part I'm also very much guilty. On top of the aforementioned accusation of immaturity, he claims to have found this edit summary offensive. I also called him obtuse and petulant, and told him that I had less respect for him than for the intellect of a slug. I believe that my final "personal attack" was to call his behaviour dishonest, undignified and adversarial. I have no problem accepting my share of the blame, and I am willing to accept any punishment deemed necessary. As I told another user who tried to calm me down, I know using such language is not necessary, but I can't deny I found lashing out kind of satisfying after dealing with a stonewalling, gatekeeping user who repeatedly accused me of being NOTHERE, implies I'm a sockpuppet and claims I'm a SPA activated after the war to push Russian propaganda. Just for clarity's sake, I started editing this year (I usually made a handful of edits every year) with the CEE Spring event, I hardly, if ever, edit stuff on current affairs, and in my only mention of the current war in Ukraine (on my article on the brewery Ochakovo) I referred to it as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, no minced words, no euphemisms... Some propagandist! I guess I'm not getting my extra ration of vodka for the winter, comrades.

The fact that this all I reported here happened between a month and a week ago will probably make it sound like me being vindictive and coming to lash out on Marek after someone else opened a thread. Subconsciously, it might well be the case, for dealing with this person was by far the most unpleasant experience I have had on Wikipedia. But today he once again called me a "sleeper SPA account", and he's not planning on stopping, so I wanted to point out just how difficult it can be to deal with a person who is impervious to sources (even today he claims no sources talk about Crimea being de facto controlled by Russia) and who takes himself too seriously to admit he might be wrong. I think user:El_C is perfectly correct in not taking claims without evidence as proof that someone is WP:NOTHERE, but having a guy with tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia spend over a month accusing me of being alternatively a sock, a sleeper Russian propagandist, and WP:NOTHERE (or all of them together - are we in WP:ASPERSIONS territory yet?) is beyond annoying and tiresome. At this point it's off-putting. Ostalgia (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Just checked the edits on Simferopol (article), there is a huge problem with Volunteer Marek's understanding of "de facto". The article Kyrenia can be a perfect example for this.

Kyrenia (Greek: Κερύνεια locally [t͡ʃeˈɾiɲˑa]; Turkish: Girne [ˈɟiɾne]) is a city on the northern coast of Cyprus, noted for its historic harbour and castle. It is under the de facto control of Northern Cyprus.

Kyrenia
Country (de jure)	Cyprus
• District	Kyrenia District
Country (de facto)	Northern Cyprus
• District	Girne District

Not sure what's hard to understand that Russia (yes an occupation) has a local authority in x region of Ukraine, which indeed means de facto. As similar articles to Kherson/Zaporizhya stuff, there is a long standing example of Girne District (de facto) and Kyrenia District (de jure). Such edit warring is simply not ok. Either we should have wikipedia wide consensus on de facto/de jure stuff, not allow de facto things both in lede or infobox, or this should not happen at the first place. Beshogur (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss content issues, but fwiw, no, the proble is with you not understanding that something needs to be sourced for us to include it. If there are no sources that say "de facto Russia" then we don't put that in either. Additionally you're failing to understand the difference between "de facto controlled by Russia" and "de facto Russia". The former is true, the second one is not. I don't know anything about Kyrenia, nor do I care, since WP:OTHERSTUFF is a thing. Volunteer Marek 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Additionally you're failing to understand the difference between "de facto controlled by Russia" and "de facto Russia". that's not even true. Does Russia have a local administration for both Crimea Republic and Simferopol? The answer is yes. Simple as that. And there is no difference between both of your sentences. De facto is de facto, and we denote that on every article with similar situation because of npov. Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious statement coming from someone who's spent the last 3 weeks edit warring to remove "under the de facto control of Russia" from the lead. But indeed, this is not the place for a content discussion (I've said my piece, and then some, on the talk page, including plenty of sources, which for the most part you're content to ignore), but merely to point out the way you behave when editing, which, as it's become pretty clear to me, is not limited to a single article, or to your interactions with those of us who had the misfortune of editing it. The fact that nobody seems to care about it doesn't mean I, or anyone else, doesn't have the right to complain. Ostalgia (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek's edit warring on Kherson Oblast (Russia)

1. [34] rv 1
2. [35] rv 2
3. [36] rv 3
4. [37] rv 4
5. [38] rv 5

within 24 hours. (and those are the consecutive ones)

edit warring on Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia)

1. [39] rv 1
2. [40] rv 2
3. [41] rv 3
4. [42] rv 4
5. [43] rv 5
6. [44] rv 6
7. [45] rv 7
8. [46] rv8

within 24 hours. (similarly as above) Beshogur (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah with these edits including reverting IP user restoring fake information. Unfortunately there were also a few accounts-who-should-know-better also restoring unsourced text. And yes, this unsourced text was fake (fake flag, fake governor, fake existence). Hell, User:Beshogur, you yourself restored fake unsourced text and also here. The IPs and brand new accounts? They have a plausible excuse, that they don't know Wikipedia policy (plausible but unlikely). What's your excuse? Why did you restore fake unsourced text? This isn't something that you can hide with "no consensus!" behind. Fake unsourced text is fake unsourced text and any experienced user should know better. Volunteer Marek 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And now we have the same crap going on at Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast [47] from yet another account that's barely a few hours old [48]. Volunteer Marek 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh cool, accusing me of using those? Beshogur (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Did I link to an edit by you? Volunteer Marek 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't place it below me then. And sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry reverting is not excuse. You should've asked for protection way before. And regarding those articles, This was the version of that you edited first time (2 days after this). You are removing stuff, so you need consensus.I am trying to find middle ground. Beshogur (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't place it below you. And I did ask for protection (El C protected it). And yes, reverting sock puppets who are inserting fake unsourced text into an article IS indeed a valid reason for reversion. And no, I don't need "consensus" (sic) to remove unsourced text. Especially when it's fake info someone made up. You are not trying to find a middle ground. You are trying to deflect from the fact that you edit warred to restore unsourced fake text into an article. And then had the audacity to falsely accuse me of removing *sourced* text. If you want "middle ground" start with striking your false accusations. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not above being corrected but I believe the restoration of unsourced information is a violation of policy and the offending information can be removed immediately. I don't think that counts as edit warring. --ARoseWolf 15:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: 3RR violation is violation. And those were not even consecutive reverts. There were way more. Beshogur (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I am saying this doesn't appear to be 3RR because its not edit warring to remove unsourced contentious content. The violation is the persistent inclusion of the content. Cooler heads need to prevail here. I appreciate the attempts as described by Fram below to try and slow this down. Fram is right concerning the encyclopedia. Slow and methodical. In my opinion there isn't anything behavior wise actionable but I'm not an admin so they may see something different, however, I would encourage, as a fellow editor, that everyone involved cool off before coming back and discussing this on the article talk pages, or anywhere on Wikipedia, in a civil manner. That's how collaborative efforts work. --ARoseWolf 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are removing stuff, so you need consensus. hwhat? No, the addition of material requires consensus. The addition of material also requires reliable sources directly supporting it. Though VM, you are much better off getting help from a post at NPOVN or RSN than trying to deal with nationalist trolls on your own. Doesnt leave an opening for things like "you need consensus to remove bullshit". nableezy - 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Turning this into this is acceptable right? Beshogur (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when none of the removed material has sources referring to a Russian oblast. Restoring material without even pretending to have looked at the sources, like say here, is not. nableezy - 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

[49] Shoudln't pretend like this isn't Russian government website. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a government website and primary, not to mention unreliable. It can't be used to support anything in Wikivoice. That makes it poorly sourced and therefore removable. --ARoseWolf 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That's why I first redirected and then AfD'ed these. People rush in and add all sorts of unverified, unverifiable, ... information prematurely or incorrectly to a rapidly developing, controversial situation. Claims have been made about the actual borders of the Russian-claimed oblast (the same as the Ukrainian one? Larger?), about the flag and coat of arms (because someone saw a flag in the background of a Putin speech, not really the kind of sourcing we prefer), and so on. It is even dubious if the regions can be described as "annexed", as annexation requires occupation but Russia has claimed parts they don't even occupy. We should be an encyclopedia, not an attempt to be the first to document something in the hope that it will turn out to be correct, and certainly not when tempers around it get this heated (unlike, say, Hurricane Ian, where no one disputes that there is a hurricane and many are killed, and the uncertainty is mainly about the correct numbers and so on). Waiting, slowing down, treating things like this first in existing articles, of which there are plenty (Kherson Oblast, Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine). That attempt by me spectacularly failed though... Fram (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, think its worth a community imposed extended confirmed restriction for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. Youre not going to be able to deal with the IPs and newly registered accounts that will come in droves over this. It should be applied as broadly as the ARBPIA one, all articles and wider discussions such as requested moves, AFDs, and RFCs, but allow for participation on the talk page. We have a horrible record of dealing with nationalist disputes without somewhat impinging on the "anybody can edit" credo as they always attract trolls from all sides. Better to leave this to editors who have a demonstrated competence of and commitment to our policies. nableezy - 16:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes something like that is very much needed. We have the same crap going on across dozens of articles as some users/accounts try to "conquer" land on Wikipedia for Russia [50]. Volunteer Marek 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree to limit editing of articles related to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to groups of unverified users. PLATEL (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Whereas most of the articles mentioned above should be indeed protected (seriously, in Dudchany, which I have written yesterday night, someone already twice added information "liberated according to unconfirmed reports"), this particular dispute is between two editors with over 20K edits. Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont think thats completely accurate. Yes, Beshogur and VM are in dispute, but that is exacerbated by the IPs and brand new accounts. And youd certainly not have the number of reverts if it were EC protected. nableezy - 16:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not in dispute with someone. Don't put words in my mouth. I reverted him single time. I am saying that we should wait for article deletion result. Beshogur (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, I've already ECP'd both pages following an additional request (permalink). El_C 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, Im saying we should go even wider. ECP the AFD, and impose ECP on all related articles. nableezy - 17:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh I_C. I haven't looked at the AfDs yet, but that might be a good idea. El_C 17:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Now  Done. El_C 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if the article is kept, that does not justify blanket reversions of material that is not reliably sourced. And yes, when you revert somebody and then lobby for them to be blocked you are in dispute with them. nableezy - 16:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur - I'm just wondering. Why did you take sides and jumped in support of the IP -->[51],[52] and another editor --->[53],[54] re-inserting unsourced data and then asking for consensus? Why not ask for consensus without reverting (I'll repeat) to the unsourced problematic version? Why did you revert without inspecting if the info you re-inserted is referenced? I find it problematic, you know? GizzyCatBella🍁 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur and you did the exact same thing here and then you came here. That wasn’t the right thing to do, think about it.

Anyway, I agree with the motion of extended confirmed restrictions for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Your "unsourced problematic version" has 18 sources, and Volunteer Marek's version has 7 sources. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, 18 sources. Let's see what they are.

A source from June 2022, supposedly about an oblast created in October 2022. Except it's actually a source about an entity that existed in ... 1944

Then two whole sections with 0 sources.

Then another unsourced section which describes the Ukranian oblast

Then a section on the referendum with four sources, two of them unreliable and none of them about the topic (we already have an article 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine)

Then a section on annexation with one source, CNN. Except that source isn't about any oblasts either even though the text falsely claims it is.

And of course a whole bunch of made up fake unsourced garbage in the infobox.

So yeah, you restored three whole sections which were completely unsourced. One section which had a single source which said nothing like what the article text claimed. And another section with a single source which also had nothing like what the article text claimed.

I guess if we want to be accurate you restored a version that was "mostly unsourced + couple sources being used to lie to readers by misrepresenting their content." Yeah... I don't think that makes it any better Beshogur. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The source you are referring to was the website of the Military-Civilian Administration which was created in June. However since it's accession to the Russian Federation (As ratified by the Duma today) The website has been updated to reflect that. RadomirZinovyev 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• There's a bit of on-wiki chaos here. The number of new and newish accounts making similar arguments, the number of citations to official or low quality sources, and the number of problematic edits/arguments are all concerning, and clearly the more experienced Wikipedians are getting stretched thin. This looks like one or more brave admins need to jump in and start raising some protection levels and handing out tbans. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites Start with extended confirmed restrictions for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. That will prevent a lot of possible issues. Veterans will find their way to consensus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was about to suggest topic bans for Platel and Beshogur, to be honest. A lot of heat would be removed from the area. ValarianB (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beshogur: reasons for that exactly? Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beshogur Please. Just don’t comment so quickly, cool down, your perspective might change. We’ll resolve it eventually - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @ValarianB I think Beshogur just needs to cool down. This is very emotional topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: what do you mean emotiononal? I have 0 relation with both Russia or Ukraine. Beshogur (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's clear you're a friend of Marek, what discord do you guys share? Care to give an invite?RadomirZinovyev 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @RadomirZinovyev as I understand Beshogur’s emotional reaction due to the development of this discussion your above attack has no excuse. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @RadomirZinovyev, strike that please. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: perspective regarding that two oblast things? I left that topic a long time ago. Beshogur (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  🏖⏰ - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Just ban PLATEL (talk · contribs) temporarily (1 month is enough to make him calm down I reckon?) from editing anything related to the current Russo-Ukrainian war. And spare us from further disruption and collateral damage (I'm not an extended-confirmed editor in English language Wikipedia; I understand the reason why this limit is being proposed below (Volodymyr Saldo page that I'm watching gets vandalized several times a day by anons or apparent socks); however, established editors like PLATEL shoudn't be allowed to contribute to further disorder that we inevitably receive from KremlinBots.Knižnik (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought that I could calmly withdraw from the discussion, after having voiced my position for the billionth, backed up by official documents and other secondary sources, but now they are calling for my ban, apparently, simply because I zealously defended my position.

  Just calm down (ha, I'm talking about calmness) and participate in the discussion, supporting your opinions with arguments and analogies, expressing a neutral, unbiased point of view and not taking a position in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

  PLATEL (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've read this long discussion with increasing surprise. The number of outrageous personal comments Beshogur engages in here, towards several users, is astonishing. First the claim that Volunteer Marek is WP:NOTHERE, unacceptable in itself. Then doubling down below by insinuating Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella, two active long-term contributors, are socks. This combines with a number of heated and ill-judged comments by Beshogur throughout this thread. I move that a time-out from Wikipedia be in both Beshogur's and the community's best interest. Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: did not mean sockpuppet per se. Also I am not an ego machine, I apologized for that mistake. Beshogur (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like much of the discussion here has strayed from the original purpose of this ANI. And that is that Marek has engaged in rather disruptive editing recently, engaging in edit wars, some slow motion, and some more quickly, on pretty much any topic that could possibly be related to Russia and Ukraine. For example, Marek has twice removed Crimea and Sevastopol from List of federal subjects of Russia by population for seemingly no other reason than that other countries don't recognize Crimea as Russian, which is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is recorded in the Russian census. And has provided rather unhelpful edit summaries at times, as an example, from his first removal of Crimea and Sevastopol from List of federal subjects of Russia by population, he wrote this: "Stop trying to legitimize brutal aggression and illegal land grabs." I feel that such editing is detrimiental to the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be encouraged. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The socks and SPAs are active on quite a significant range of other articles to try to push this unsupported POV narrative. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Uncanny edit time differences between Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs)

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.

---

While GizzyCatBella trying to connect me to some Russian named new accounts and IPs, those two editors seems to edit very closely with eachother. There are 16 articles where they both edited under 1 minute. Should be investigated per WP:INVESTIGATE. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Where am I trying to connect you to new IPs!? And you accusing me of being a sock-pupppet of VM (or the other way around) Calm down Beshogur. Take a step back please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Where did I say sockpuppet? I said it should be investigated by a administrator. Why did you take sides and jumped in support of the IP -->[454],[455] and another editor. I did not "jump" in support of someone I have never met. But both of your edits are very close to each other in timing. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur, this is just blatant trolling and evidence of an inability to contribute productively to the topic area. ValarianB (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not acceptable, Beshogur, please stop. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you are right, Beshogur, something is suspicious about Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella. (rmv attempt at doxxing - Vm) Perksport (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC) — Perksport (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lol. An account with 4 edits but perfect knowledge of Wikipedia table mark up is lecturing others about "suspicious behavior". ... Wait ... wait... I know this one. This is indef banned user User:Paul Bedson. Please just ban and oversight. Volunteer Marek 19:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like accusations to me. And unnecessarily long for "interesting coincidences" (prior to removal). Also you involved another editor for which you didn't even discuss above. Perhaps you should narrow your insight a little and provide more than just circumstantial evidence or supposed suspicions and try not to dox my fellow editors this time. Thanks so much. --ARoseWolf 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Perksport's been blocked as a very likely sock of Paul Bedson. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok probably not. Both users are apparently pretty old and won't risk such thing. My apologies from both. Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

🙂👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That was an excellent decision. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Striking out your initial accusation would be a great way to show that you've taken it back, without trying to hide the fact that you said it PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Extended-confirmed restriction for all articles related to the Russia-Ukraine War

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 community imposes as a general sanction the following for all articles and discussions related to the Russia-Ukraine War (hereon "the topic area")

Extended-confirmed protection: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.

2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.

C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

• Support - as proposer. Language taken directly from WP:A/I/PIA. nableezy - 17:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - about time. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - seems necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Revised version supported as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support How is this not already in place? Cambial — foliar❧ 17:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I agree that such articles should be written only by experienced people in an unbiased manner. PLATEL (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support The logical thing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support also adding 1RR like Syria topics. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems good to me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Seems appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Support modified wording. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum, but the disruption is coming from experienced editors as well. ValarianB (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. However, this discussion was opened by an experienced editor accusing another experienced editor of edit warring and potential sock puppet accusations inferred, if not outright suggested, from both sides. May need additional admin assistance in bringing down the temperature if they can't control themselves. --ARoseWolf 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)--Support is unchanged. Thank you for the update Nableezy. --ARoseWolf 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "Support but I'd also add a 1RR restriction too do deal with some of the more experienced editors appearing to push a RGW approach here. (Assuming there is not one already) There is a lot of misinformation due to lack of good on-the-ground reporting from this region and all editors need to take breathes before rushing to add in seemingly groundbreaking news. --Masem (t) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This should have been done some time ago.Physeters^✉ 18:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm not reading any of the screed above this section, but as someone who edited this area in the early stages of the war, I can say that ECP is essential here. While this topic area falls under WP:ARBEE, I think there has been enough cause for a new focused ArbCom case. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I saw the discussion at WP:AN and was wondering what to say. I think this will help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest rewording this so it matches current wording of this restriction Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction which I will be updating on the page nableezy found it at after hitting publish on this edit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Eeek, sorry, but with this many supports can I change it at this point? nableezy - 18:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Talk about early Oct WP:SNOW! ;) El_C 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Nableezy I think with pinging. Otherwise I would just suggest the closer determine whether the consensus is for the concept - in which case the current wording could be used - or these specifics in which case it should be the wording proposed here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

   Done nableezy - 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment In principle I have no issue with articles concerning the war being afforded this level of protection (you can count it as Weak Support, if you must), but who, and how, defines what exactly falls within the scope of the "area of conflict"? What geograpgical region, what period, what people, etc. I don't usually edit current affairs, however I've had to deal with Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian accounts, angry about certain individuals or territories being even remotely associated with Russia, reverting edits, blanking sections of pages, or changing people's nationalities based on their (the users') feelings. The reverse also happened on one occasion, with a user reverting one of my edits where I stated that a Soviet politician was Ukrainian instead of Russian (the user, however, self-reverted, presumably after checking the source). Since memory politics are also very much a part of this conflict, I would appreciate a little clarification on this issue. Ostalgia (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, TBH we should probably do something like this every time a war breaks out. Perhaps theres room for a discussion on formalizing that in some way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Note, modified the wording to match the current wording used by the Arbitration Committee. Pinging the editors who have participated @Volunteer Marek, SarekOfVulcan, ARoseWolf, Ostalgia, Physeters, Masem, ValarianB, GizzyCatBella, Malcolmxl5, Beshogur, Curbon7, Dank, Cambial Yellowing, NightWolf1223, PLATEL, and Horse Eye's Back: (I think thats everybody). nableezy - 19:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest that the above ping'd participants only respond if they object to the re-wording, otherwise, it's liable to get busy for naught (I think I'm reading the room right when I say this). El_C 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable from my read of the conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Any disruption in this topic area should not be tolerated. Cullen328 (talk)
• Support Levivich (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Mu - I'd rather ask for an amendment to WP:ARBEE to make this an Arbitration matter, as this falls into that case's topic area in the first place and most violations of this are apt to end up at WP:AE in any event because the line where this restriction is breached is well within the line where the discretionary sanctions regime is. I'm fine with implementing it in the interim, but this should really be done with ArbCom buy-in for ease of enforcement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ARBEE already covers Ukraine. No amendment is needed, per my reading, for any uninvolved admin to wade in and start applying discretionary sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Per what I wrote in the section above. Fine with whatever wording makes sense per arbs or others with more experience setting these rules. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above to protect against any future wars in these war pages. AKK700 20:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. GrammarDamner how are things? 21:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems needed and appropriate. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. With as much of a hot button issue as the war is, reducing the amount of disruption in the topic area is important. It's a shame this wasn't proposed months ago, but no time like the present. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think the entire thing should be put under GS, instead of just a single EC discussion here, but this is a start. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is very much needed, especially as the situation is (unfortunately) set to go on for quite some time. The number of very new accounts jumping in, often (but not always) with a pro-Putin view is staggering. Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Makes sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support It's a small step towards reducing disruption. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support smart idea! Andre🚐 23:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Honestly should have been done a week or more ago, if not from the beginning of this conflict. Since we knew it was going to draw in a ton of SPAs from every political side. Silverseren^C 23:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously will continue to be contentious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This obviously will reduce the amount of disruptive edits from new editors pushing their POV stances. However, this will not stop POV/emotional editors who already passes the ECP threshold. – robertsky (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Yes! At least then the unnoticed propaganda-pushing might become more easily manageable. Nythar^T.C 02:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly warranted and necessary to rein in disruption in the topic area. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry to end the streak of supports here. I am an auto-confirmed editor with no extended confirmed rights. Considering everyone else here has the extended confirmed rights, I hope that I can bring some new viewpoints to the table.
  1. Locking all articles, including obscure ones because they belongs to a contentious topic, would significantly lead to a lost of potentially new, productive and good-faith editors. Lots of people are inspired at how fast we are updating these articles. They want to join in our efforts. But with a blanket extended-confirmed protection, that inspiration would be quenched immediately. Can you imagine how long does it takes to gain access to blue-lock articles? 720 hours and 500 edits before you can contribute to your topic of interest. You would need to make more edits than 99.75% of all accounts in existence while being perseverant enough to stay for more than 30 days. That's a lot. Think about all of these good-faith people that are inspired enough to make an account to write on Israel-Palestine articles – and then stopped because it takes way too much grind to gain access.
  2. It would do minimal amount of damage to serious LTAs, propagandists, campaigners and dicks. Think about it: if they want to seriously screw us up and inject their point of view, they would plan ahead. They would make lots of sock accounts. They would build trust. They would even get people to join in the effort (which has happened before a few months ago). In short, if these people has a strong will, there's a way to bypass the security.
  3. It would set a dangerous precedent. If the Russian-Ukraine war articles are blue-locked, why don't treat other large-scale conflicts the same way. It's a slippery slope to "protect all articles", and would fundamentally violate our core philosophy of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are in fact extended confirmed btw. nableezy - 15:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I intentionally strip myself from extended confirmed right to see through the lens of a newcomer. It also has a nice benefit of not dealing with socks and such. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well then you've no right to complain about this extended confirmed protection excluding you from the subject area, if you've voluntarily given up the right. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Fortunately, CactiStaccingCrane clearly didn't complain on their own behalf, but made three reasonable arguments about the impact this would have on others and Wikipedia as a whole, so your comment is baseless. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Per many of the comments above. A necessary first step. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support A justified measure. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - certainly justified. It'll prevent all the run-of-the-mill SPA disruption, allowing enforcement to concentrate on the more established editors. MER-C 18:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Echoing many of the points already made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I keep an eye on 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis as well as a number of other war-related articles I have edited/created. While there is some occasional disruption, it is not sufficient to justify blanket-protecting hundreds if not thousands of articles. I echo what CactiStaccingCrane said above; not only is this bad for Wikipedia now, it sets a poor precedent. The most prominent articles (such as Russo-Ukrainian War) can be dealt with on a case-by-case business. This is a very broad measure being proposed here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  To expand on my comment: I urge those supporting to consider how broad a scope "all articles and discussions related to the Russo-Ukrainian war" may be. How is this to be defined? Will it include all 300+ articles and 300+ talk pages in Category:People of the Russo-Ukrainian War? How about the 100+ articles and 100+ talk pages in Category:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation? There are 2365 articles under Category:Russo-Ukrainian War per petscan. I'm worried that we are rushing into closing off literally thousands of Wikipedia articles from 99+% of potential editors with very little basis. The original dispute above would not even have been solved by this measure since all editors involved were extended-confirmed! I can see very few actual examples of disruption in the many Support comments above, just supposition. If we got through the actual February invasion ok, we can get through the rest of the war without resorting to vast overreactions like the one proposed here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Late perhaps (though still less than a day, I believe) that we need a direct ECP on all articles within scope. Which is quite a few - Ganesha gives a good example. Authorising a freer hand on protection would be fine (indeed, perhaps surprising not to have earlier, though certain DS regimes may have been used for some), but I believe the scope in the proposal is broader than necessary. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, below, I mention as an aside how a few years ago several of us at RfPP decided to stop the practice of blanket (preemptive) WP:ECP of all WP:ARBPIA pages. Rather, only those pages exhibiting contested edits by non-EC users were ECP'd as such, a practice that remains to this day. El_C 15:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. ECP protecting articles does indeed reduce disruption, and I've seen some seriously bad good-faith editing by newer users (such as citing Twitter), but frankly it also greatly restricts the number of people who are actually able to update and correct pages in the area. Rather than jumping straight to ECP, I would advocate for semi-protection to be generally applied in the area, with administrators given broad discretion to apply ECP to individual articles. But I frankly don't see it necessary to ECP articles like capture of Chernobyl or Battle of Antonov Airport when disruption can be adequately addressed with semi-protection (or, in the case of 2022 Snake Island campaign, with no protection at all). Admin discretion is key here, and admins should be empowered to allow editors who do not yet have 500 edits to engage in articles in this broad topic area that do not have any apparent patterns of disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ganesha811 this will set a bad precedent and is an unnecessary overreach infringing on WP:5P3 and WP:AGF. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Per WP:APPNOTE with respect to WP:GS, I posted a notice at AN. 46.97.176.101 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment While I recognize the well articulated argumentatiob by the minority opposed to the suggestion, I find few of those concerns serious. In particular, I disagree with the following:

1. It would be hard to implement No, not really. We have similar restrictions in place in similar topic areas already. One can like or dislike them, but they work.

2. There's not much disruption going on There clearly is, as a visit to a large number of these articles would show (explaining the strong support).

3. It would shut out good contributors Having looked at many of these articles for some time, I see a lot of disruption from new accounts, and very few helpful contributions. For those who actually do come here to contribute, it merely delays their contribution to articles on the war for a little while, nobody is shut out.

4. It wouldn't stop the disruptions It certainly would limit them a lot. If every time a sock is blocked, the new sock has to meet the requirements, rather than disrupt again immediately, it limits quite a lot, and for the better.

Again: virtually all the disruption comes from relatively new SPA-accounts. Introducing the suggestion would do a lot to improve the situation. Jeppiz (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I'm seeing a lot of knee-jerk reactions and pile-on votes going: "This is a contentious area, surely we need EC protections!" and no evidence that the EC protections are, in fact, needed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Restrictions are needed, though certainly not for all articles that could be considered part of the topic. Considering El C's I mention as an aside how a few years ago several of us at RfPP decided to stop the practice of blanket (preemptive) WP:ECP of all WP:ARBPIA pages. Rather, only those pages exhibiting contested edits by non-EC users were ECP'd as such, a practice that remains to this day. comment above, I'm going to assume that admins have enough sense to only apply where there's a reason for it to be applied other than it being connected to a contentious topic. (And yeah, there does seem to be some level of socking and probably other sorts of disruption to give just one example) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure implementation

As much as I enjoy this demonstration of how brilliant my ideas are, I feel like this can be snow closed at this point. nableezy - 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would do it but this is ANI and i don't wanna get in trouble for doing something I probably shouldn't. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to leave a closure of this proposal to admins. Now, if one were to review protections for related pages at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Eastern Europe, you'll see that ToBeFree started semi-protecting these for one year, and all of us just sort of followed suit. That is why all the pages I protected yesterday were for a year, this is by design.

Personally, I don't think we should have a separate community WP:GS to log these, because keeping everything in one place is simplest. Something akin to WP:ARBPIA's Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Extended confirmed protections subsection at WP:AEL I think would be best. Clearly there's overwhelming community consensus to implement the proposal. But the implementation details remain vague, especially in so far as the community amending ARBCOM procedure.

So, I'm happy to close it accordingly as well as assist in upgrading those semi-protected pages to WP:ECP, but do we do it in the way I outline above? And also, do we extend the duration from one year to indefinite? For the smoothest transition, making all of that clear would be helpful IMO. Thoughts? El_C 14:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

In any case, we should not close this before 24h expired, and, given that it was added to the important discussions template, I would wait for 48 hours min. Though it is unlikely to change the result, it will make the close more legitimate. Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about implementation, and I think Ive settled on asking ArbCom to subsume this community imposed sanction in to WP:ARBEE. Would make for lifting it easier in the future too, when it is no longer drawing the heat:light ratio that it is from new accounts/IPs it can be removed by an agreement of 5 rather than brought to AN for a consensus of whoever happens to be at the drama boards at the time. At least one arb is aware of this discussion, maybe we can tempt him to see if there is any appetite on the committee for taking this off our hands at least procedurally. nableezy - 15:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And don't forget deciding on duration: should it be indef, one year, variable? That should be settled beforehand, too. But, indeed, in my experience, ARBCOM has been quick to act at the face of clear community consensus, so I don't really foresee that (subsuming) being an issue. El_C 15:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh hey. The ping in [55] somehow didn't work. I've got used to setting the duration for DS protections to a year, as DS blocks are limited to the same duration (WP:AC/DS#Sanctions) and it can't hurt to re-evaluate the situation after a year. If this proposal passes, though, I'd use indefinite protection instead, as this requires the community to formally remove the ECP sanction in case the protections are no longer desired.

This doesn't need to be settled beforehand, though. WP:A/I/PIA says nothing about protection durations, yet it works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what this restriction is. It's a topic ban for the Russo-Ukraininan war, for every single editor that is not extended-confirmed. With an exception for the talk page.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I was replying to multiple messages, such as the one mentioning my name above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I linked your username normally, so I dunno. The thing is that sometimes a page will experience disruption for years even after an AE protection was placed on it also for years (i.e. that re-evaluation might take years in practice). So indef is also an option outside of ARBPIA, at least for now (who knows about the DS reforms, I sorta gave up there). That's not a criticism, but just the benefit of my experience as someone nearing 10K protections. And the opposite problem is, indeed, also true. With ARBPIA, though, the extended-confirmed cap is indef, so I think everyone sort of understood that the duration for the accompanying protections should be, too. Including a few years ago when a bunch of us at RfPP decided to stop protecting ARBPIA pages preemptively, and to decline such requests on that basis. But I digress! El_C 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: FYI, I found out some time ago that pings don't work if there's a line break between the ping and the time stamp. Scolaire (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, I think I answered my own question: if the EC cap on Russia-Ukraine War is not set to expire, neither should the protections — makes sense. El_C 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont think the protections in ARBPIA should be set to a year or treated as a discretionary sanction, thats a direct sanction from ArbCom with no expiry. This instance makes more sense for an expiration, as unless the occupation lasts 50 years we should see a decrease in disruption over time. ARBPIA has intractable disputes because the underlying dispute has been, so far, intractable. nableezy - 14:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, I think the point is for the EC editing cap and ECP expiration (or lack thereof) to align, so maybe despite ToBeFree's view that it doesn't need to be settled beforehand, it should (i.e. via the sanction overall). Regardless of the semantics of it being imposed by ARBCOM, the community, or any combination therein. Scolaire, thanks. I never noticed. I should remember to experiment with that to see if it's indeed the case (if so, that's dumb). El_C 14:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposal: 1RR for all articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War

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

---

• This was mentioned above, in the discussion, but it did not get attention of its own and has been drowned out by support votes.

• I support this because the editing conflicts include editors that are extended confirmed.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If we are going to put this under both 1RR and EC, why not just put the whole topic area under general sanctions? I'm sure there are some topics that shouldn't require 1RR or EC, and putting the whole topic under GS would empower the admins to use protection as necessary, without any further discussion here. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Follow up: I proposed full GS, and it was removed as the topic area is already under DS. Shouldn't any request for 1RR or EC protection be on AE, not ANI? Or is this considered a narrow scope of the ArbCom case, specifically related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, in which case the general sanction proposal would still be valid? Just trying to figure out what's going on here, it looks like the community is about to impose a General Sanction in an area where there are DS in place, which I don't know if we can do, since ArbCom sanctions usually supersede community imposted sanctions. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Any general sanctions for this topic would almost certainly be redundant with WP:ARBEE, as the entirety of the Russo-Ukrainian war seems to me to fall under that discretionary sanctions regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  And in that case, shouldn't a request for EC go to AE? ANI is not the place to request enforcement of DS, and it seems requesting EC would be related to the DS for the disruption in the topic area. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hence the reason I !voted Mu above. This actually is expansive enough that the proper venue would be WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and amendment, not AE or AN/I (both of which can handle sanctions enforcement; AE is not a hard requirement). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't even see that, so my feeling this is misplaced isn't exactly inaccurate, but AE might not even be the proper place. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Editors can request for sanctions to be enacted at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but since in this case individual admins are authorized to enact sanctions at their discretion, if there is no ongoing discussion there, it only takes one admin to be convinced to act. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (for now) - have to think about it and weight pros and cons. Main problem is that with articles on current events you get a lot of traffic, it can be difficult to update and it's easy to stumble on exact # of reverts/partial reverts/edit conflicts/etc Volunteer Marek 22:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent edit warring. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, 1rr is an extremely onerous restriction and its really not practical to impose on a current events topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think 1RR actually helps defuse disputes. Andre🚐 01:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Posting false edit warring notice by User:Varoon2542

Varoon2542 is persistently doing edit warring and they have refused to discuss the issue on talk page dispite of my repeated efforts here [56] and now out of nowhere posted edit war warning on my talk page [57] (despite of no violation). Their behavior only confirms that they are not being here to build an encyclopedia.-Satrar (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Satrar Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you warn Varoon2542 after they only made a single revert to a page within 24 hours? I've been watching the situation between Satrar and Varoon2542 for a while at the request of the latter. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ZLEA, I guess you have been told by an admin not to poke the bear unless you're not directly involved in a situation with me and you yourself admitted on the aforementioned user's talk page that you are not the right person for arbitration. You keep on advising them on their talk page but I haven't asked for your help keeping in view your history so I would highly appreciate if you do not address me and do something meaningful. My best regards. Satrar (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am directly involved as Varoon2542 asked for my arbitration originally. I was hoping you had moved on from our little argument as I had. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're a bad editor, but I do believe you are a bit hot-headed and need to improve your civility and assume good faith. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten about you but since you do not let me do that (: ever. You are also not a bad editor but you have to understand WP:IDONTLIKE. They might have asked you for your help but I didn't and I would admire you more, had you told them about the baseless warning they posted on my talk page. Now see they must be enjoying their daily life after violating half a dozen of policies but you are arguing on their behalf. I literally admire your intent but consider my request of not to interfere in my matters because I don't want to argue with you anymore (as I consider you a friend now). My best regards again and please let the admins decide this matter.-Satrar (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not defending anyone. As far as I've seen, both parties are merely involved in a petty rivalry and I have not seen any policy violations from either side. I might be wrong, but your AN/I case against Varoon2542 is very weak as you had done the exact same thing on Varoon's talk page not too long ago. If you believe Varoon has violated half a dozen policies, you should present your evidence in this case. Otherwise, I suggest that instead of throwing warnings at each other, you both forgive and forget and try dispute resolution for any disputes you have. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Satrar, you brought this issue to WP:ANI, probably the most visited noticeboard on the project. Once you raised the problem here, anyone can jump in and offer their opinion on you and other editors. If you wanted this to be a private discussion, you should have stayed on a User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz Help ! How am I supposed to get out this quagmire? I've already been cleared by Bbb23 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Varoon2542_reported_by_User:116.71.160.23_(Result:_No_violation) How can I consistently be bullied in such a way by both multiple unidentified editors and Satrar? Varoon2542 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnatyrannus May I have your arbitration, please? You recently reverted the Nayyara Noor article to my version before an unidentified user - 39.50.2.173 - undid your edit. I think you can confirm that my edits were justified and are being reverted by unidentified editors and one identified one, i.e, Satrar. Thank you and I apologise for bringing you in this. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am able to confirm that your edits were indeed verifiable, and that I was reverting unsourced edits by a banned user. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

YantarCoast edit warring to add unsupported lines to occupied Ukrainian region article

Rendered moot

Editor YantarCoast is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to the article Kherson Oblast (Russia). The article heavily relies on primary sources/press releases from the Russian government and Russian media repetition of the same. YantarCoast has already breached 3rr. No RS support the additions, and YantarCoast has made no effort to add reliable sources which support them. It looks like an attempt to legitimise this on wikipedia without reference to reliable sources. The unsupported category and template were added last week[58][59]. Diffs: [60] [61] [62] [63] Cambial — foliar❧ 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Whether or not you or I like it, Russia has annexed the Kherson Oblast. Of course, you can pretend that this hasn't happened. YantarCoast (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC) For 3RR the venue would be WP:AN3. Though I would suggest to YantarCoast to self-revert in the meantime. Mellk (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Problems on the "Ligures" page

A User:LambdofGod has fun changing the wikipedia pages in all languages ​​concerning the subject of Liguria to spread false informations without any basis. he was blocked and he came back with a new User:Toulousien-ancien account to do the same kind of destruction. He was blocked again but he comes back again with the User:Perrens2 account to do the same thing again. The problem is that he attempts to force ideas across without any historical source, without any reference to an ancient text or archaeological evidence. Page Ligures => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligures Julienor94 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I just verified that I was mentioned on that page. First of all, I AM NOT the person this user says I am and that was previously blocked. This user accuses me all the time of being a user that has already been blocked and that I have no idea who it is. This user User:Julienor94" simply does not accept that anyone adds anything to the article ligures, and in particular he refuses to accept any mention that these people have also inhabited France, in fact, he is obsessed with France, trying to erase any mention made of that country throughout the article. All the time, instead of mentioning France directly he says: "Italy (geographical region)", I really can't understand this despair and this paranoia about France; I noticed that a user (User contributions for 176.245.79.36) had added a lot of information in the article a few days ago and this user "julienor94" just canceled it all. Furthermore, he adds information with "citations" that do not match what he writes in the article. If anyone takes a look at the article about the Ligurians on wikipedia in French or in Italian, they will notice the difference in information compared to the article in English, which in recent months has been completely changed thanks to the user "Julien". Well, I don't have anything else to say, I just want to keep the article from the "ligures" the way it is kept in other languages. That is, with true and stable information.Perrens2 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, both of you should be blocked for your edit history on the Ligures article, not just today's massive edit warring but your historical edits as well, it's clear you both have issues that you're unable to control yourselves over. Both of you have previous warnings for edit warring, both of you have knowledge of WP:3RR from those warnings, and both of you are so far past 3RR you can't even see it with a telescope. I think I'm counting 9 reverts each. I think both of you should give us all a really good reason not to block you from that article permanently. Additionally Julienor94, if you have evidence that Perrens2 is a sock of LambdofGod then open an WP:SPI. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

All the texts that I put are authentic translations with references giving on their original sources. That is to say links to historical texts. The problem is that Perrens2 wants to bring Liguria into the history of France by force without any proof. There is no archaeological evidence or ancient text that can state that the Ligurians lived in France. Except in the department of Nice which is in the Italian geographical area. I must specify "Italian geographical area" because from Nice to the Italian border there are only a few kilometers. All ancient sources said that the Var (river just west of Nice) was the natural border between Gaul and Italy and that the Ligurians occupied the Italian area separated by this river and the Alps. The Alps are a major obstacle to any gene flow. It is also a major ethnic-cultural border. Since 1860 France invaded Nice but the fact that Nice is today in France cannot say that all of France or the south of France was populated by Ligurians. this is precisely what Perrens2 does subtly with his accounts as soon as he gets blocked. And it keeps coming back. It's always the same process, he starts by making slight modifications without an account or with an account created the same day. This is so as not to unmask his main account. If the modifications are not removed it continues and as soon as one asks for references and removes these ideological additions Perrens2 immediately appears as if by magic with the same contemptuous aggressive way of speaking. Exactly the same speech as User:LambdofGod and User:Toulousien-ancien. I specify that these accounts were unmasked for vandalism and belonging to the same person. Moreover, it is always on the same subject to put France in history. He plays on the fact that there is no follow-up of the page to deceive other users of wikipediaJulienor94 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop making accusations of sock puppetry without providing any evidence. If you suspect this then open an SPI otherwise it is considered a personal attack. And I see nothing in your explanation above that explains why you’re edit warring so horrifically and massively. Canterbury Tail talk 22:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And despite this thread going on, and despite being told that the edit warring is not acceptable, you did a revert and edit again at the Ligures article so I'm blocking you for 24 hours for what I believe is 10RR. Canterbury Tail talk 23:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Fraudster posing as Wikipedia request for donation.

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

---

I clicked on the Wikipedia Brexit Party entry and a persistent “Wikipedia(?)” request for donations inserted itself. At first sight it looked genuine but on second thought I have doubts. How do I know if it was genuine or a fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.126.51 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide more details, such as the link it was sending you to? Wikipedia does have (too many IMO) pushy donation requests. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

A fundraising campaign is beginning, and donation request banners will appear to all IP users and those accounts that have not turned the banner off in their preferences. If you don't want to see the banners, please create an account and turn them off. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If you really want to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation (which is not the same as Wikipedia) then ignore any requests about which you have doubts and click on "Donate" in the first section of the left sidebar on any page. I agree that their official requests for money are indistinguishable from fraud. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

indistinguishable from fraud? That's a bit much. Good you're an expert on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this is the dramaboard and all that, but that doesn't mean we have to actually incite that drama. That last quip is a bit much, don't you think? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave a templated response that I think should be sufficient:

Welcome and thank you for your question about donations! To hide the fundraising banners, you can create an account and uncheck Preferences → Banners → Fundraising. The Wikimedia Foundation does not track the identity of IP addresses, so it doesn't know your age, income level or whether you donated in the past.
None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors here who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever.
We are led to believe that users who allow cookies are less likely to see these banners on repeat visits (further information is available here), and you are welcome to communicate directly with the donor-relations team by emailing donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Zhomron

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

Sending this user here because the individual called both me and Pngeditor "complete fools" in their edit summary @Yahwism, and re-added the unsourced content in the same edit that I had reverted from Zhomron's previous edit which had an empty edit summary for the addition of unsourced content. Additional, looking at Zhomron's contributions, the user does not fill out the edit summary for adding or removing content in articles. I have not checked whether their edits in general are sourced or helpful. Judekkan (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've looked back into it somewhat. Their editing history isn't the best, but isn't worth a block as I see it. A reminder about WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and using appropriate edit summaries is in order though. An apology may also be nice, but is not strictly necessary. Then we can all move on? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of talk-page comments on ketogenic diet

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

---

On the ketogenic diet talk-page article Colin has removed an entire conversation claiming "per BLP, remove personal attacks on cancer treatment researchers". [64]. On my talk-page the same user also left a comment telling me "Do not call named scientists "quacks" and "not real scientists" [65]. I take offense to this because I have not personally attacked anyone, I have attacked dodgy sources, not people. If you check the conversation I have not specifically called any researcher or scientist a "quack" in person or by name. Indeed I have not called anyone a "quack", I said two papers were because they were published in possible predatory journals and are making far-fetched claims. It is clearly not a BLP violation to give an opinion on a talk-page that a fringe source is "quackery".

Colin was promoting two dubious sources one published by the dodgy MDPI journal "Nutrients" and another dubious source (in the journal Aging (journal)) that was advocating anti-tumour effects in humans from rodent models (the review paper was 2 pages long and cited only 7 sources). Both of these journals have been criticized as predatory. As explained on the talk-page there is no clinical evidence that a ketogenic diet is effective to treat cancer and that paper is using very bad science. Per WP:MEDANIMAL we shouldn't be making those sort of claims in regards to effects in humans. I have improved the article by removing these weak sources and adding a good source (a systematic review) which notes this [66]

In regard to the unreliable papers, Colin has not apologized for recommending these sources even after I pointed out they are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I think most experienced medical users would agree that the review published in the Aging (journal) is of very poor quality. I do not see how it is a violation of BLP to criticize a paper on a Wikipedia talk-page or call a paper "quackery". If you look on Wikipedia talk-pages, this term is used all the time for papers on covid denialism, anti-vaxx papers and all kinds of nutritional woo. I don't see how calling a paper "quackery" is a personal attack. It is very dangerous to be claiming there are "anti-tumour effects" in humans from limited and unreliable rodent studies, that was all I was trying to get at. I do consider these papers dubious as most would. If we can't give opinions on talk-pages then what hope is there?

I want to point out that the MDPI journal "nutrients" is often quickly deleted on Wikipedia or rarely used because much better high-quality sources exist. Just one example, if you check the fructose article, a Nutrients journal was recently removed there as the journal is suspected as predatory. If you check the conversation that Colin removed you will also see his comment to me where he said "Please take your plant based quackery off this page and go be insulting elsewhere." [67]. That would actually be a personal attack and incorrect because the paper I cited on the talk-page is a reliable source published in a decent journal [68], contrary to the unreliable papers Colin is promoting that use almost exclusively animal studies.

The issue in regard to the unreliable sources has now been resolved as I removed them off the article so I don't want to hash out a conversation about edits on this article but I believe that no BLP violation has been made here on the talk-page. The only personal attack I can see is Colin telling me to take my "plant based quackery elsewhere", then deleting the entire conversation. I would like a third opinion on this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This editor made a good edit to the Ketogenic diet, summarising a recent systematic review. But they spoiled things by dumping on the talk page a rant about quack scientists. In this post they said "The idea about an "anti-tumour effect" from a ketogenic diet is clearly quackery" and that "Real scientists would not use this kind of language" and went on to name and personally attack a researcher in this field. For background, the ketogenic diet is a 100-year-old diet invented by renowned neurologists to treat epilepsy. In recent years, it has become popular for weight loss or sports nutrition. Hence a view by some it is a fad diet. Psychologist Guy clearly believes anyone thinking this diet might possibly help with incurable brain cancers is a quack. Hmm. Clinical trials: Cancer + Ketogenic diet lists dozens of trials at leading hospitals. Sure, this is not a treatment in normal clinical practice, but real proper scientists and oncologists are taking it seriously and doing what science does. It is possible they conclude it isn't helpful. That's science. Not quackery.

You can read about my lack of medical qualifications on my user page. I created WP:MEDRS but other editors, who know more about research and journals made it the guideline it is today. I'm more than happy for editors to enlighten me if a journal has shortcomings and positively delighted if they add/replace material citing the highest quality sources. What I take issue with, is editors who think Wikipedia is a forum where they can make personal attacks on real living researchers trying to find cures for the incurable, whether that's with rats or humans (gotta start somewhere). As I said on the talk page, their edit to the article, which I don't challenge, could have been made with summary "Summarise conclusions of recent systematic review." It's what they dumped on the talk page that is the problem. It is cheap and easy for some anonymous account "Psychologist Guy" to call a real named scientist a "quack" and "not a real scientist". That belongs on Twitter, not Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 21:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw User:Psychologist Guy's edit because the article is on my watchlist. Rather than just replace a few sources with one that is more recent and possibly more WP:MEDRS compliant, the editor left a vicious, and almost certainly a libellous rant about a named research scientist on the article's talk page. The accusations of "quackery", made in part because the scientist in question had "used rodents" as animal models in her research, made me feel ashamed to be an editor. Before User:Colin deleted the rant, rightly in my view, because it violated our BLP policy, I was contemplating reporting User:Psychologist Guy's behaviour here. I propose a boomerang and praise to User:Colin for their timely intervention and issue a warning - if not a block - to User:Psychologist Guy. Graham Beards (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I occasionally make the mistake of taking a look at ANI, and I hesitated to comment, and will probably regret it. I can see and mostly understand how editors on both "sides" feel, but I think this dispute is ripe for deescalation. I'm not seeing anything block-worthy, nor would I want anyone to be made to feel ashamed to be an editor here. Simply removing a talk page discussion in which there had already been multiple editors commenting was a less ideal solution than using either Template:hat or Template:redacted, so I can understand the complaint. But since editors all seem satisfied with the actual page edits, this is probably best just left as-is. Psychologist Guy was, for the most part, making a case against using a brief opinion piece in a predatory journal, and instead for using a peer-reviewed secondary source, particularly since the content is about human health. I can understand that he would not feel like that would merit a warning, and Colin's language directed at him was actually harsher than what Psychologist Guy had been using. Psychologist Guy repeated the name of the author of the opinion piece several times, but mostly to identify the citation. He used some strong language to describe the cite as being fringey, and it is within reason to regard such material that way; editors can disagree about it without violating policy. I see language like that used pretty frequently to characterize poor quality source material. It was a heated discussion, but not particularly directed at the source author, and I don't think it rises to the level of a BLP violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't support a block on current edits, because they didn't restore the BLP violation and asked for a third opinion here. We are all entitled to be "wrong on the internet" from time to time. The irony is we are "on the same side", as it were, anti-quack, pro-science. -- Colin°^Talk 22:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I believe you and Graham are mislead about how much pseudoscience has filtered into this topic. Outside of epilepsy, most of the "field" of ketogenic diet would be considered "fringe" or "quackery", with massive conflict of interest. The majority of scientists are not conducting this kind of research. I have indeed called two papers "quackery" and I stand by that, I did not attack the authors by name. I have been careful not to call anyone by name that word but the stuff in those papers is not high-quality.

If you click on this link that Colin cited [69] and go and look at most of the clinical trials you mention, i.e. example the first one [70]. You will see massive conflict of interest with most of these trials. The Principal Investigator for the first trial on that list is Jeff Volek, PhD. Jeff Volek has been described as a "pioneer" of the low-carb movement and has appeared on many keto and Low-carb podcasts disputing varius dietary guidelines. He has written two books advocating low-carb diets (one of those books promotes cholesterol denialism), he has been funded by the Atkins company to conduct some of his research. He runs a website called "Virtahealth" which claims a ketogenic diet can reverse many diseases and put type 2 diabetes into remission long-term which is clearly false because we have no long-term data. The website is filled with pseudoscientific claims. Here is an article by him dimissing the saturated fat guidelines [71], in that article he attacks Ancel Keys and reccomends Gary Taubes. That is the level we are at, conspiracy theorists promoting cholesterol denialism (these people actually think having a very high-blood cholesterol is a good thing).

Another clinical trial, priniciple investigator Eugene J Fine [72], this man is featured on many low-carb websites, example the conspriacy theorist website "dietdoctor" run by Andreas Eenfeldt [73], turns out he is another cholesterol denialist. Another Pavel Klein, M.D. [74]. Who is this man? Another low-carb advocate who tours the country attending low-carb events, here he is at Low-Carb USA (he was a speaker) [75]. Another example, Jethro Hu [76], he is another low-carb speaker who attended something called the "Metabolic Health Summit". Sounds good right? Well no, it is a pseudoscientific low-carb conference, speakers include paleo advocate Robb Wolf (!) author of The Paleo Solution, Aseem Malhotra [77] and Andreas Eenfeldt, all cholesterol denialists telling people to eat red meat all day and put butter in their coffee.

I could cite about 20 more of these but you get the idea, this is not guilt by association that is what these researchers do. These are not objective researchers, they are promoting the "fad diet" of keto outside of their clinical trials. Hopefully in your spare time you can just Google search "Jeff Volek" and others and see what he believes. You have tried to separate the scientific clinical trials from the modern fad diet promoters of low-carb/keto, but you will find if you dig deep there is no separation. Many of the people doing these clinical trials are the same people writing books, attending conferences and posting on social media that Keto cures everything from cancer to heart disease. This sort of misinformation is damaging. There is a lot of pseudoscience here and the majority of the time they cannot get published in high-quality journals. That is why they use MDPI and Frontiers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have called two papers "quackery" that were published in weak sources, maybe I should have used the words "bad science". I just typed a lot above because I am not sure other editors understand how much pseudoscience and "bad science" has invaded this subject area. Everday on social media is someone claiming the keto diet can cure almost every disease, there is a lot of bad science out there about this topic. It is disturbing and also alarming that the people promoting this kind of views like Jeff Volek are the ones conducting the trials. You can just Google search a lot of these authors and see they are publishing keto books for weight loss or attending low-carb conferences. They don't offer any high-quality evidence, then it boils down to rodent models. But I agree this was probably a waste of time. I have nothing against Colin or Graham Beards they have clearly made a lot of good edits. I am more interested in finding out if using the term "quackery" is a BLP violation on talk-pages. If it is then I won't use that term anymore on talk-pages. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it is. I would say: don't call a person a quack, or their work quackery, or bad science, etc... unless you're citing/quoting a source who says that. Editors' personal opinions that papers are quackery or bad science etc. are irrelevant. Our opinions about sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of other WP:RS. So if other RS say this is quackery or bad science, quote them, and then it's not a BLP issue. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I warned this editor on the article and their user talk page not to make personal attacks on scientists, per BLP. As Levivich says, we can review sources and their appropriateness for our articles without personal attacks on the researchers. WP:MEDRS gives us a framework to do that. What counts is what our best sources say, not our own judgement or personal views on diets (plant based or ketogenic, say). I initially rejected Graham Beards suggestion that a block might be appropriate, since the editor had not continued posting BLP violations or restoring material (that, Tryptofish, our policy requires to be removed, not merely hatted). But their post at 00:10, 5 October 2022 above demonstrates the classic mistake at AN/I of trying to convince admins that your disruptive behaviour is justified by being right (about them being quacks). I lost count of how many BLP violations occur above. We can't do this folks. I know, per Tryptofish, some old school WP:MED editors had a habit of sounding off about quacks in a blunt and name-calling manner, but well, at least two of them are banned now. This isn't the vegan-skeptics-against-dairy forum, Psychologist Guy, and ranting about scientists by name is not allowed here.

I think we are at the stage where an admin has to make a clear "stop this right now" notice, and if further posts of this kind occur, then a block. Some of the text above does not belong on Wikipedia and should be reviewed for deletion imo. I'm as anti-quack and pro-good-science as the next WP:MED editor but this is not how we should be behaving in 2022. -- Colin°^Talk 09:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As a point of order, Psychologist Guy's comments above are not WP:BLP violations. We're free to call people "quacks" on discussion pages, just not in the article without very good sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, BLP applies to all namespaces, but only where there actually is a BLP problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Colin, you should have known when to leave well enough alone, but now that you've directed comments at me, and you've failed to follow my suggestion (to all) to deescalate, I'm going to reply. (And, as I said, I was likely to regret having gotten into this.) I'll start by saying that Psychologist Guy did himself no favor by arguing a content dispute at length here. To answer his question, calling a source "quackery" on a talk page is not a BLP violation, any more than calling a sockpuppet disruptive is an NPA violation. On the other hand, making it ambiguous as to whether you are applying the term to the source or to the author of the source puts you on thin ice with regard to BLP.

But Colin and Levivich are also on thin ice by pearl-clutching WP:CRYBLP. It's clear that Psychologist Guy was arguing that the source was one of "bad science" as he said above, or, as he might better have said, not a reliable source. He said it badly. He repeatedly used the source author's name to refer to the source, instead of using the journal name (example: saying "the Tryptofish source" instead of "the Journal of Keto source"). If one doesn't like hatting the comment, it would have been easy to use the redacted template, and a user talk message about please tone down the language, instead of going straight to saying it was a policy violation with all that implies – and that would have avoided this entire flare-up. There was no need to remove an entire talk page section over some phrases that could, instead, have been redacted.

And this goes in both directions. Saying, above, cheap and easy for some anonymous account "Psychologist Guy" isn't exactly elevating the discussion. You can act superior over such "old school" editors as DocJames, RexxS, and whoever else, but you reacted to the initial comment by Psychologist Guy on the article talk page with such affect, and are continuing to do so here, that it comes across as crying BLP in order to gain the advantage in a content dispute. So – if an admin wants to give a "stop this right now" notice, I think there should be two of them, one for Psychologist Guy, and one for Colin. Or maybe we could all do what I suggested earlier, which is to drop the stick and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't a content dispute. No one has objected to the updated source. This is about the rant that was posted on the Talk Page, and the personal attacks on a named, living scientist. Graham Beards (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Then there certainly wasn't a need for anything more than agreeing with the edit updating the source, requesting politely that he not say those things, redacting them, and moving on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Our BLP policy was contravened by Psychologist Guy and Colin acted in accordance with our policy in that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." A complaint was then made here by Psychologist Guy about Colin's compliance with the policy in which our policy was again contravened by Psychologist Guy several times. This does not go "in both directions". Psychologist Guy should be admonished and warned not to contravene our policies ever again. Graham Beards (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling a paper "quackery", is the same thing as calling the author of that paper, a "quack". You can't get around one by claiming the other. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's the actual diff: [78]. What he said was: The idea about an "anti-tumour effect" from a ketogenic diet is clearly quackery, it has never been observed in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I missed it at first, but it was followed later by this: [79]. That, however, was preceded by: [80], which keeps repeating the word "quackery" over and over while calling him "confused", and so appears to have been a response to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look at this section and some of the linked diffs multiple times because the term "BLP violation" rings several alarm bells and makes me want to deal with them as soon as possible. And every time I've looked, I was left with the impression "perhaps I just don't get the severity of this, so I won't comment". This has happened so often now that I think I should mention it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at another way. Let's say you're working in a hospital on a possible adjunctive therapy for glioblastoma. You aren't the only one doing this research. Dozens of other university hospitals have been looking at this therapy for many years now. Glioblastoma's a bad 'un: your twenty patients have got about a year left and nope there's nothing we can do about it. Not a single one of them will be alive when your paper finally gets published. Someone tells you that your previous work has been cited on Wikipedia and your name mentioned. Wow. No, not in an article. On an article talk page. And an admin's forum. And they called you a quack. Said you weren't a real scientist. Criticised where some of your funding came from. Said you couldn't get published in a real proper journal if you tried. I bet you feel really shitty now. Wikipedia is not here to make doctors and scientists feel shitty about trying to cure cancer.

All of this is unnecessary. Our job is to cite the secondary literature, to let other people review the primary research. If that literature is in a weak journal, fine, we can debate what journals are best and cite a better one instead. There's no need to make personal attacks on anyone.

Editors who want to create an anonymous account on the internet and say horrid things about other real people can go on social media. It isn't complicated and our BLP policy is quite simple. Unsourced personal attacks on real people should be removed, article and talk space, and editors who persist face sanctions. -- Colin°^Talk 20:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Editors who want to create an anonymous account on the internet and say horrid things about other real people can go [elsewhere]" – absolutely. Without question. And additionally, of course, Wikipedia is not a forum, even for perfectly friendly essays unrelated to the encyclopedia.

Assessing the reliability of sources, however, is something routinely done at WP:RSP (or article talk pages, of course), and assessing it by pointing to specific indicators of inaccuracy is usually equally fine. For example, someone answering an RfC about the reliability of the Daily Mail is welcome to describe cases of obvious factual inaccuracies in that publication. Some of the comments about the Daily Mail specifically probably made those responsible for the criticized content "feel shitty". The one starting with "Kill it with fire" comes to mind (archive link, courtesy ping Guy Macon).

Drawing a line is harder when the discussion isn't primarily about a person but rather a publication, if the discussion about the publication is (somehow?) on-topic and important to building a consensus about the article content. And if I see correctly – this should perhaps be noted just for the record – the discussion on the article talk page unnecessarily went from content-focused to conduct-focused and full of "You"s through your comment(s).

This isn't a monochrome decision between "Your conduct is commendable, please continue" and "Your conduct violates central policies so severely that if I see it happening again, you'll be blocked indefinitely". It is complicated; this isn't a simple case. If it was a simple case, it would long have been actioned and closed by now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. I remember that, years ago, when I was a rookie editor, I was in a content disagreement with another editor. An IP editor came along and posted a very nice comment agreeing with me. I then made the rookie mistake of replying to the IP with words to the effect of thank you for saying that and I hope that you will stay around this discussion and help me. The editor I was disagreeing with immediately jumped on me, saying how dare I ask the IP to help me; I should have said help us.

I don't consider Psychology Guy to be a rookie editor, but what I'm trying to express is that it's easy to say something in not-quite-the-right-way, without it having to become a federal case. Psychology Guy said: The idea about an "anti-tumour effect" from a ketogenic diet is clearly quackery, it has never been observed in humans. That's not a perfect statement, but it's not that much of a BLP violation, as BLP violations go. I've read it multiple times, and I cannot tell whether it means that the paper cited is quackery, or whether there are health practitioners who tell people to make bad decisions, which is quackery, and Wikipedia should not cite work that misleads our readers about that, particularly when we don't have reliable sourcing that this even works in humans. It could be either, and I'm not saying that it's definitely the second, only that it's pretty indirect as pertains to the author of the source.

That's all that Psychology Guy said initially. His post was greeted with: [81]. That's where the word "quackery" gets directly connected to the source author, and this connection, that apparently needed to be deleted from the talk page, got repeated over and over amid some pretty strongly-worded criticisms of Psychology Guy. Kinda like my experience as a rookie editor. And everything escalated from there.

I want to make it very clear that I am not claiming that Psychology Guy's comment was perfectly OK. I'm not. I'm saying that it had problems, but it wasn't the kind of BLP violation that we normally treat as sanctionable. I'm also not saying that the BLP policy is unimportant. It's an important policy, but that doesn't mean that everything that doesn't comport with it perfectly is equally worthy of making a big deal about. This whole dispute should have deescalated a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, calling something "quackery", is calling someone a "quack". Paul August ☎ 21:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well then, I'll repeat that there is ambiguity as to who that "someone" originally was. I'll also say, for the first time here, that BLP is an important policy, but it isn't holy writ. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What!!? So our BLP policy is open to challenge? I don't think so. Graham Beards (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are making a joke or are serious, so please forgive me for answering seriously. I'm not saying that the status of BLP as a policy is in question, and I'm not saying that editors can simply pick and choose whether or not to comply with it. But I am saying that, regardless of the policy, some violations are sanctionable and others are not. That's why admins are (I assume) human beings rather than bots. I've been noticing of late that whenever someone mentions the BLP policy, some editors react as though the very naming of the policy requires an over-the-top response. Maybe it's virtue-signaling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't joking and I am familiar with John 8:7. I think this discussion has little left to offer. It's clear that Psychologist Guy was in the wrong to bring a complaint about Colin to this venue and that Psychologist Guy has gotten off lightly. I would settle for an apology and move on. Graham Beards (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Then I'm glad that I answered you seriously. We agree that this discussion has little left to offer. If the two primary disputants would just make nice with each other, we could all move on to better things. For me, that would be to find out what John 8:7 says. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's the cast the first stone thing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot#There is no "immunity" for reporters. EEng 13:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I was worried it might have been the thing about the jawbone of an ass. Personally, I try to keep my jawbone away from my ass. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish, there are two things you have entirely made up here. The first is your fictitious claim that there was a content dispute which is the basis of your cry-BLP argument that I deserve an admin intervention. And the second is that I was the one who made this "a federal case".

Psychology Guy's original post mixed personal attacks on ketogenic diet researchers with off-topic promotion of "plant based diets" for cancer. You criticise my response. My response was polite: talk KD. I thanked them for their edit but pointed out some of their comments were "insulting and unhelpful". I did not mention BLP. They responded to this here with more personal attacks on named researchers. I responded here by saying 'The edit you made could have been done with summary "Summarise conclusions of recent systematic review."'. I think ALL of us here agree with that. And yes, I told him to "go be insulting elsewhere", a sentiment that is echoed by others above. I left a note on their user page here reminding them of policy but with no threat of sanctions. I asked them to "Find a way to discuss sources and articles without making personal attacks on real people." Again, I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. At this point, nobody is going all "federal case".

What happened next was Psychologist Guy came here. And then you turned up and half the internet rolled their eyes. I mean, Tryptofish, you are the least unbiased person to just happen to chance by and offer their wisdom. And everyone here knows that. And then you start just making stuff up and asking me to get a warning based on your fictitious content dispute. And Psychology Guy gets encouraged to post even more personal attacks against researchers. Which, you know, wouldn't have happened if an admin had just written

"Psychologist Guy, BLP is taken seriously, on article and talk pages, and personal attacks on real living named people, without sources, are not acceptable and may be removed by any editor. We have other ways to determine the suitability of sources and material to put into articles."

And that would have been the end of it. And really, that should be the end of it. Tryptofish please desist. -- Colin°^Talk 09:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin:

@Psychologist Guy: BLP is taken seriously, on article and talk pages, and personal attacks on real living named people, without sources, are not acceptable and may be removed by any editor. We have other ways to determine the suitability of sources and material to put into articles.

Paul August ☎ 14:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And let's hope that is the end of it. Paul August ☎ 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC))

Colin, every single thing you said about me, you entirely made up. Please desist. Oh, and I smell bad, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC) I'll just say "no", instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You should have disclosed your history of conflict with Colin from the outset. All you have contributed here has been in bad faith. Shame on you. Graham Beards (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:2WRONGS (and WP:USTHEM). But no, it was in good faith, regardless of what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Psychologist Guy is unlikely to reply here any further, and Colin is certain in his rejection of the feedback he has gotten. And other editors are just going around in circles about BLP. I think it's best for everyone if somebody closes this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how you concluded I was rejecting any feedback, except yours. Those admins/editors who understand BLP agreed with the removal of the violations on the talk page. Job done. Psychologist Guy got the answer he was asking for, eventually. Tryptofish, I can only repeat again: please desist. It is rather sad, pathetic, desperate, and becoming disruptive. -- Colin°^Talk 16:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your receptiveness to feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this as the discussion has come to an end. Similar to HandThatFeeds, I thought we could use the term "quackery" on talk-pages to refer to bad science papers. It's now been explained that this is not the case per BLP and we cannot use that term, so I apologize and won't use the term "quackery" again on talk-pages. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent personal attacks and uncivil comments by Wikaviani

Wikaviani is not taking 'No Personal Attacks' seriously. He makes harassing and uncivil comments during the discussions, specially when it comes to challenging issues, which makes consensus building nearly impossible. Here he makes attacks by saying "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV". In response, I politely asked him to avoid casting aspersions against me. At the time he made more attacks, like this.

Now, when he is told by another user to avoid making personal attacks he made here, instead of avoiding personal attack, he responds: "calling a cat a cat is not a "personal attack". --Mhhossein ^talk 11:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the conversation. I think there's a case for WP:BOOMERANG here.

First and foremost, you're quoting him out of context. He said, "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV without providing any reliable source." Emphasis mine. Please don't misrepresent words by selectively quoting them.

It's not a personal attack; it's an observation about behavior. He feels that the content you've proposed is biased towards the Iranian government, that your posts treat the talk page like a WP:FORUM, and that the sources you've provided aren't reliable.

You also linked to a diff that showed a comment Wikiaviani made and called it an attack. It's not. He's saying that you have a battleground mentality; that you're edit warring; and that you're distorting Wikipedia's guidelines.

You, yourself, previously accused him of having a battleground mentality and edit warring. You're claiming that such statements now count as a personal attack. When you said those things, did they also count as personal attacks?

Here's some feedback for you: if you suspect someone is some sort of sockpuppet, raise it in WP:SPI. Don't try to discredit other participants in a discussion by airing such a suspicion in the middle of a content dispute. Quandarie 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This is not a personal attack, and Wikaviani is in fact not the first person to make this observation; I did it as well back in 2019, in a WP:AN thread where other users made similar concerns [82]. If you assemble all the cases, there is a good amount of evidence to back this. For example, back in April 2020, Mhhossein was partially blocked for "tendentious commentary and original research" [83] which he made in this thread regarding Khomeini (taking a pro IRI stance) [84], the founder of the IRI. A pro IRI stance was also taken here (2019 June) (September 2021). Heck, take a look at even his most recent case regarding the death of a poor woman by IRI Guidance Patrol for showing some hair. Do I need say more? (September 2022). They have also been warned "against a battleground mentality and further incivility" in relation to articles about Iranian politics. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the comments down below, I should have perhaps clarified better. This pro-IRI behaviour all violated at least one of our guidelines in each of these threads. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Quandarie: I really don't think [85] and [86] are appropriate ways of communicating with others in such a calm discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, while edit warring, misrepresenting what reliable sources say by cherry picking only the parts you like, using unreliable IRI sources repeatedly while you have been told not to do so are appropriate ways to edit this encyclopedia ? By the way, two editors are still waiting for your explanations at Talk:Mahsa Amini protests, it would be an appropriate way to communicate to answer them, don't you think so ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mhhossein, thanks for the diffs. Mhhossein is right; it is an unacceptable personal attack. Quandarie 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Quandarie: ; Don't get me wrong,

• Given Mhhossein's profile as an editor, I disagree, when an editor systematically misrepresents what sources say to push a pro IRI POV during unrest in Iran, it's not surprising to see him do it again now.
• Again, calling a cat a cat is not a personal attack towards said cat.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Personal attacks again: I thought the insight by two third parties (Vice Regent, Quandarie) would make it clear enough to you that your comments had been personal attacks and that you should not comment on the editors. Among other things, you are making ad hominem comments which WP:WIAPA says are "never acceptable". --Mhhossein ^talk 03:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Vice Regent did not respond to my answer as to why it was not an attack, neither did Quandarie. Oddly, you keep cherry picking comments that favour you, omitting what HistoryofIran and Quandarie said about you deserving a topic ban ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• That they did not respond is irrelevant to the fact that you did perform Personal Attack against me. You need to avoid commenting on the editors. Also, Quandarie's comment on topic ban was probably when he had not noticed your attacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that they are not responding may mean that they are running out of arguments (and Quandarie doesn't know your editing profile as well as I do...). I'm not going to waste my time arguing with an editor like you, who has an agenda, even the user who closed the topic ban proposal was in favour of the topic ban. Keep pushing your POV with unreliable sources or misrepresenting what reliable sources say and we will meet here again and this time, maybe the community will finally realise how disruptive you are and make the right decisions. Also, instead of repeatedly posting messages here accusing me of "personal attacks", maybe you could answer to the editors who are waiting for your explanations about the blatant cherry picking and misrepresentation of a reliable source at Talk:Mahsa Amini protests. Done here with you for now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Said the guy who has been blocked 30 days for Tendentious behavior and original research from Khomeini's page, topic banned from MEK, recognized as a POV pusher, warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility, and so on ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Can an admin handle the continuous harassments by Wikaviani please? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's nothing to do here. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment : I could hardly do a better job of gathering evidences than what has been done above by two other editors (also see here). I think Mhhossein is quite a knowledgeable editor on Islam related topics, as evidenced by the articles he has brought to the good or featured level, but when it comes to topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he is almost systematically biased.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal: Mhhossein

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

---

WP:BOOMERANG : Given what has been said above, i propose a topic-ban of all topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, broadly construed.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Amended heading to clarify that this is a boomerang proposal, not a proposal against yourself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for clarifying.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support : Per nom.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment this whole discussion is an excellent illustration of why WP:GS/IRANPOL / WP:ARBIRP [Links fixed. El_C 16:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)] was needed, and of the fact that a larger number of admins are needed to monitor this area. El C and myself did so for a while, before we were exhausted by the endless bickering and omnipresent battleground mentality. I strongly suggest that no action be taken in this case unless and until uninvolved admins or experienced editors have had a chance to give their input (but I will likely not be one to do so). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This belong at ArbCom for a full case with all sides presenting their evidence, not an ANI proposal where one group of partisans bands together in a show of "consensus" for sanctions against another partisan. nableezy - 21:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Not sure I agree. ARBCOM cases are for complex disputes; this is just endless mudslinging that can be resolved by a group of admins, but is exhausting for any single one. Someone ought to try AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde, this case is better here than at Arbcom. Also, I don't see how I can form a band of partisans with an editor I've never interacted with before today (Quandarie).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

There was an ArbCom case on this last year. I don't think Mhhossein has learned from it. Quandarie 06:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: this is worth a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions regime. Quandarie 06:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Yes, Mhhossein has been part of previous disputes, but why is a topic-ban requested here? Having a pro IRI stance and expressing it politely in a talk page? BOOMERANG is not "let's retaliate because we can". MarioGom (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There's much, much more to this than his pro-IRI stance. Quandarie 08:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Being part of disputes and expressing it politely is not the problem and as far as i can see, nobody here is saying let's retaliate because we can, i made a topic ban proposal in order to stop the disruption caused by Mhhossein when it comes to IRI related articles, not to "retaliate". There are many many diffs provided above, please take the time to check them. Every time there is unrest in Iran, this guy steps in with unreliable sources or misrepresentation of what reliable sources say, all with edit warring, personal attacks and a battleground mentality, it seems quite obvious that this editor is not neutral when it comes to editing IRI related topics, isn't that enough for a topic ban ? I've seen editors get blocked/topic banned for much less.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

My comment was a reference to, at least, 2 of the provided links [87][88]. Unless someone gets more specific with diff links or specific quotes, the rationale above seems to be that you consider unacceptable to hold certain positions, rather than a behavioral problem. What I've read so far in these two links are reasonable comments (whether they are right or wrong) about the handling of sources, in-text attribution, etc. Actually, what I do see is that other editors immediately personalized the discussion. I might be missing context, but I just don't see the path from these links to a topic ban. MarioGom (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

[89] Blatantly misrepresenting a source to make it more in favour of the IRI is reasonable? For a user that has been here for 8 years and has been accused/warned for similar behaviour in the past? Mhhossein hasn't even responded to why he did that yet, even though he was asked directly TWICE in that very talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The path that links Mhhossein to a topic ban is here : edit warring and refusal to achieve consensus FIRST before reinstating his edits while trying to discredit reliable western sources with a POV tag when Neda Agha Soltan was killed by Iranian forces (along with personalized comments like "thanks for your collaboration, let's remove the tag when the issues are resolved" while the onus was on him to convince others about the inclusion) : [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95] (he reverted 3 different users to reinstate his edits, two registered and one anon ...). Also, as said above, blatant misrepresentation of a western source by cherry picking only the parts he likes and omitting the rest, quite odd for an editor who speaks English very well and has been editing here for so many years, don't you think ? There are many other examples.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: I for one, am tired of seeing Mhhossein violating our guidelines in favour of their persistent pro-IRI edits/comments and getting away with it. Being "polite" whilst doing it doesn't make it any better, that's why we have something called WP:CPP. I don't think this was would have happened if there were more admins to monitor this area (though I don't blame them). The fact that Mhhossein only got topic-banned from MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran) related stuff back in September 2021 is honestly baffling [96]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Australian IP geography disruptor is back

Following several blocks earlier this year, this editor is back, and still at it, doing the exact things discussed in the previous discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Disruptive Australian IPs and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093#Block evasion by Eastern Australian geography and BLP IP user. Basically, they are still adding unsourced elevations to infoboxes, still changing spellings to American English, still removing maintenance templates without fixing the issue, and all this after multiple previous rangeblocks, several talkpage warnings (including some very comprehensive ones), and over 6 months to smarten up their act. Diffs:[97][98][99][100][101][102][103]. They are on multiple IPs, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is also a music article disruptor who I've included here too, as they operate on the same ranges, and has also caused substantial problems. I will notify the most recent IP. If this needs any further clarification or details, please let me know. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think those are all on CGNAT providers, so their IPs can change frequently. Many Australian CGNAT ranges have been repeatedly blocked, some for years, to stop disruptive editing. These two ranges related to what you have observed have been blocked previously.

1.145.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – last blocked February 2022 for 6 months

1.145.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – last blocked May 2021 for 6 months

It might be time to block again and increase the durations. – Archer1234 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, also see 1.144 and 1.146 ranges for more from this same editor. They are a significant pain, and must surely be aware of this by now. I'd actually like to ask for a CBAN, but I don't know how many people are aware of this editor and the trouble they cause. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

1.144.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – last blocked by Drmies May 2021 for 6 months. Of the last 500 mainspace edits by IPs in that range almost half (240/500) have been reverted. Turns out that most, if not all, of the 240 reversions occurred in 1.144.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), last blocked by JBW in March 2022 for 61 days.

1.146.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – last blocked by Malcolmxl5 June 2022 for 72 hours. Of the last mainspace edits by IPs in that range since August 2021, almost half (131/284) have been reverted. – Archer1234 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Those figures are way, way, higher than the typical 20% of IP edits needing to be reverted. Most of those reverted edits are likely due to this editor, plus a few small-time vandals thrown into the mix, and a (very small) minority of constructive editors, however the cost-benefit ratio here is well over 1, especially since the edits from this range (and its immediate neighbours) often need extensive scrutiny after the fact, as their edits usually aren't caught by RC patrol (most don't know about this editor and their MO, so dont realise that they're being problematic). Many of the unreverted edits are actually likely to need reversion anyway. It is however probably worth looking to try blocking a /20 or /19, as that has sometimes been as effective as blocking the /17, but on other occasions has had to be widened until the whole /17 is blocked, at which point they jump off elsewhere.

Also see:

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

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

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

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

And diffs:

[104] [105] Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The most active constructive contributor from the three ranges has suggested making future blocks on the ranges partial blocks from article space. I presume that this is to allow them to still make edit requests. I consider this reasonable, and would reduce the disruption to a much more managable level. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

They are also active on this range: 1.128.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), see these cases where they switched to this range from one of their more typical ranges to continue edit warring.

1. [106][107]

2.[108][109]

In addition, they have also used: 49.180.236.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to restore their earlier changes. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And here we see them doing the same things to BLP articles on these addresses:

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

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

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

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

See diffs: [110][111][112][113]

In addition, previous, very specific warnings have been given on several occasions, including these two instances [114][115] Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Telex80

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:Telex80 is not competent to edit the English Wikipedia. Here are some of their recent edits to illustrate this:

• "The public performance of the patriotic pieces was mandated to the public audience capable when standing to the first tune itself, somewhat all radio stations across the country may had optionally required to broadcast at exactly 7 in the morning." [116]
• "In addidtion, these ratings have been regulaatory applies on most Television stations by every media conglomerates which they produces every rating advisory in their own, but some cable/sattelite channels operating may apply it's content rating before the prior start of each programme." [117]
• "Aside from becoming a singer, he has been an ambient music producer during his free time and now he has been became on a full-time profession ever since, along for his making for styles on upbeat tempo and lofi effects of arrangements and tracks for other artists, bloggers and tiktokers such as HARU, NKI, Nikita Zlatoust, Mimimizhka, Sonya SLEEPY, Tyoma Waterfork, KIRILL FELIX, Liza Didkovskaya, Dasha Volosevich, Vika Korobkova, Sasha Filin, Eva Barats, and Ivena Rabotova" [118]

All the text they add to articles is of this calibre. Please take the necessary action to prevent further harm. 185.104.136.53 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I left the user a message about this report which you should have done. --Malerooster (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I was doing so but got a wikimedia server error when I pressed save. 185.104.136.53 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

185.04.136.53 is the latest incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. IP from London with a focus on grammar edits, continued harrasment and reversion of Alexander Davronov [119], WP:DUCK edit summaries, etc. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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

User:QUOBSERVER Is Not Here Constructively

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

This account does not seem to have made any constructive edits. The most recent non-constructive edit has been the tendentious resubmission of Draft:A New Reign: What choice?, an incomprehensible piece about monarchy, which is now pending at MFD. Before that, they were blocked for one week for non-constructive edits at Paracel Islands. (I haven't studied the edits in enough depth to know if they were vandalism, but multiple editors warned them about vandalism.) Before that, they submitted Draft:Quôc Anh Nguyên, a mostly incomprehensible rant.

An indefinite block seems to be unfortunately in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. The incomprehensible drafts and bizarre responses on their talk page do not give me any confidence that they possess the competence to contribute constructively. firefly ( t · c ) 21:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

LTFC.harry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LTFC12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sockpuppets randomly changing stadium capacity (examples [120] [121] [122]) and inserting vandalism [123], only editing Watford F.C. and Luton Town F.C minutes apart. Nythar^T.C 15:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

LTFC.harry returned this evening so I have blocked that as a vandalism-only account and also LTFC12345 as they are obviously the same person. I’ve left the IP for now as it hasn’t edited for 30 hours but do drop a line here if it returns. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:GS/UYGHUR topic ban violation by User:Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

• Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

At 02:08 on 7 October 2022, Muhafiz-e-Pakistan was made subject to an indefinite TBAN from from Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, all broadly construed. Despite this, the editor violated the newly-imposed topic ban by editing Draft:Uyghurs in Afghanistan at 11:23 on 7 October 2022. This is an extremely clear topic ban violation, and I am bringing it here for enforcement of the topic ban in line with the community-imposed general sanctions on the relevant topic area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've given them an only warning; I like to AGF on any early TBANvio by a newer user that maybe they just didn't understand what a TBAN is. I don't think anything else is needed at this time. As with DS, further violations can be dealt with with escalating blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin that means I can't edit on anything on Uyghurs? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: Yes. Stop, now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin Can I at least edit on their language, subgroups, and historical stuff on them? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: No, as you have shown an inability to set aside personal views when editing about Uyghurs. Once again, if you wish to appeal this topic ban, you should follow the instructions in the ban template. Otherwise, continuing to litigate the issue you were banned over (as you are currently doing at your talkpage) falls outside of the "necessary dispute resolution" ban exemption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I didn't know I can't even disucuss this on my talk page. Why are there such brutal sanctions on this topic? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  As to the first matter, I have linked you to WP:TBAN twice. It sounds like you still haven't read it, as it clearly states Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic. You probably should. As to your second question, you're welcome to read the two discussions linked at WP:GS/UYGHUR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Noting I have declined an appeal (permalink) on my talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I will note that Muhafiz-e-Pakistan has continued to edit the Draft:Uyghurs in Afghanistan after receiving Tamzin's final warning but before asking for clarification here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also this edit, which is doubling down on the same sort of thing that earned the user the sanction in the first place. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm also left utterly confused by this comment, which alleges that I've done/something says that the majority of Afghan Uyghurs are gay. I don't think I've done any such thing and I can't identify any such statement... anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm struggling to interpret this comment in a way that is anything other than an attempt at trolling. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Thomasthimoté

Hi folks. Thomasthimoté (talk · contribs) started editing about a month ago. They've been trying to update appearance stats for footballer articles. Like many new editors they did not think of updating timestamps: [124], [125], [126] As you can see on their Talk page I welcomed them to Wikipedia and informed them about the issue.

They kept repeating the mistake: 25 September, 1 October, 1 October, 1 October while I repeatedly pointed out the issue: User talk:Thomasthimoté#Updating caps and stats.

I then warned them repeatedly: User talk:Thomasthimoté#October 2022. All of this has fallen on deaf ears and they continued their disruptive editing and they are still at it as of today. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Parga

I will appreciate your insight here on the article Parga. Despite expressing my opposition to the use of extremist source, Xhufi, an extremist far-right Albanian politician known for his extreme bias against foreign countries and nations and for his nationalist propaganda, editors keep edit warring to have that scholar used regardless of whether other editors have expressed their legitimate concerns about that particular source. Furthermore, they haven't waited for consensus on the talk page, and are quick into reinstating the disputed source to the article even though they were supposed to discuss, not brute-force their new source to the article. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident. This is obviously a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page, as you know. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If edit warring is going on, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you believe that a work by Pëllumb Xhufi is not a reliable source, make your case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You also have various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: as an uninvolved admin, can you please tell SilentResident to stop calling Xhufi a "extremist far-right Albanian politician"? I am not involved in that content dispute and I would not prefer using Xhufi as a source, but calling a living notable person on Wikipedia that way is a breach of WP:BLP IMO. That part of the comment should probably be deleted. Xhufi does not belong to the far right and is not an "extremist" at all, whatever that term is supposed to mean here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• SilentResident, weren't you going to do a report to determine that Xhufi is not a reliable author? Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made? Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Third party academic scholars informed me that they are preparing a detailed analysis on Pëllumb Xhufi's reliability. That's why I am not rushing right away for the RSN because more material on the politician, can prove always helpful for Wikipedia to understand whether this person is reliable as a source. Not that the content and evidence found already thus far, isn't sufficing for the RSN to determine.

You stated "Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made?" but you are reminded that a growing number of WP:RS already disputed and challenged Xhufi's credibility but the users chose to ignore this, insisting -without presenting proof to Wikipedia- that Xhufi is reliable. How is Xhufi reliable when editors havent provided any WP:RS supporting Xhufi in face of the WP:RS that have discredited Xhufi's objectivity as a scholar? This is not okay I am afraid. Until the RSN concludes on Xhufi, the legitimate concerns over Xhufi's reliability may not be ignored and the legitimate concerns of editors are not less legitimate. There is no such guideline stating such a thing. In our case here the users wanting to use Xhufi's work, are fully aware about the WP:RS disputing Xhufi as a WP:RS and have two options: 1) to either provide WP:RS defending Xhufi as a reliale author, or 2) provide WP:RS debunking the other RSs discrediting Xhufi's reliability as an author. The users have done nothing of that. Instead, they chose editwarring to add Xhufi without wp:consensus to the articles and by ignoring the concerns of verification. The editors are reminded that WP:VERIFY is a core content policy in Wikipedia and when there is no consensus for using a particular source, then the editors are asked to provide independent third-party sources verifying that information provided by the extremist politician. This helps addressing any editorial concerns adequately IMO.

If it is wrong to have legitimate concerns over an author (whose credibility is questioned by other scholars) and to ask just for any third party independent RS, then please correct me because I have read again and again the Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:VERIFIABILITY and there is no such a thing as a guideline recommending that this Core Content Policy can be superseded by personal editorial POV(!) which can ignore the WP:RS(!) discrediting an extremist politician. This is just the pure definition of "not okay", if you ask me.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that this whole thing is worrisome: just now, at Parga, another Albanian account came from nowhere, from a different topic area and reinstated the new additions to the article they have never edited previously in their life, all this just to add Pëllumb Xhufi back to the article [127] through brute-forcing and without participating in the talk page nor providing any third-party reliable WP:RS. The fact that too many Albanian accounts are working together persistently to brute-force content while disregarding Wikipedia's WP:VERIFIABILITY and not working through WP:CONSENSUS-building at the talk page is exactly part of the broader issue of Albanian WP:TAGTEAM to which User:Coldtrack has pointed out recently [128] at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of talking about "tagteaming" and "Albanian accounts" here, try one of the dispute resolution ways. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The dispute resolution is supposed to be followed by all editors, not edit war to brute force your unreliable sources instead of waiting for dispute resolution like how you did now. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

What? I am not involved in that content dispute and I did not revert you. It seems that you are very confused at this point. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You are. Sorry. Lack of direct editing on the specific article doesn't exactly make you any less involved. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I hope you are not blaming an "Albanian account" for the actions of another "Albanian account". In any case, it is not clear what you are trying to say and what do you seek here at ANI/I, and it is clear nobody will solve your content dispute here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the points raised here by SilentResident, I remind all editors who wish to include material originating from Xhufi that per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It doesn't say force it on until a consensus disapprove of it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

PS. As regards the denialism that Xhufi represents far-right extremist viewpoints, perhaps objectors could enlighten the community by distinguishing the views of far-right Albanians from the views of Xhufi, and where they are on record as opposing his works. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, perhaps you are correct and works by Pëllumb Xhufi should not be considered reliable. I do not know. But the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN as you know. Asserting over and over that he is unreliable without going to that noticeboard is not acceptable. So, either go to RSN or drop the subject. It is also not acceptable to belittle other editors for being Albanians. Do not ever imply that another editor should be disregarded simply because of their ethnicity. That is unseemly and disruptive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

P. Xhufi is quite active in local national rhetoric (in TV shows etc.). Statements such as this [[129]] show clearly that he is personally involved in promoting a national agenda: he does not hesitate to accuse the Greek government (since the creation of the Greek state) of anti-Albanian activity. Definitely this isn't the kind of neutral scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered posting a RSN? Cullen literally said "the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN". Alltan (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 Without prejudice over anybody's national identity, I have read every comment on this thread including the all-important original post. I infer that SilentResident was basically using this noticeboard to say, "the behaviour of numerous editors is unacceptable" and may have hoped that admins take a deeper look into who is doing what. Although conventionally it seems that this project page is normally focused on one accused person. This time he was saying that a team of about three are slithering their way across multiple articles and posting dubious material. To that end it is not an ANEW matter in the strictest sense, and with regards RS debate, it is definitely the case that no less than one person is violating ONUS as I stated above. So in SilentResident's situation, I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack:Thank you both very much. Now if you allow me, just for clarity: as soon as I get my hands on the new Autumn 2022 reports on Xhufi by Western scholars who view that politican as unreliable scholar, you have my word that I will make haste for the RSN. Just like how you said, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that consensus is not necessary until the RSN. And to clarify that when I say "Albanian accounts": I am specifically talking about accounts focusing specifically on the two Albanian Topic Areas: Albania and Kosovo; It is important to make a clear distinction on what the term Albanian refers there. All the accounts involved into brute-forcing Xhufi into Wikipedia, share a common characteristic in the sense that they are mainly editing the 2 Albanian topic areas. Its important to make this clear because - my mistake- I assumed everybody would understand that, since obviously it makes no sense to refer to them as "Albanian accounts" in an ethnic sense - that makes no sense, since I can't verify the nationality of editors nor it matters for Wikipedia, nor I know anyone here caring at all about Ethnicities. But I am referring to these accounts in an Topic-Area context: it is a common characteristic of the WP:Balkans that accounts from one topic area, often share views and cooperate to this end, which, at first glance, is not harmful to Wikipedia, yes, but when a great deal of it involves ignoring WP:ONUS and WP:RELIABILITY, then it is worrisome and goes against the Wikipedia project's goal which is to steer away from nationalist authors and dubious sources. Next time I will use the term "Topic Area" to avoid any potential misunderstandings again, and will mention this again only if from a technical perspective (i.e. whether it is important for Admins to understand what is going on there). Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: There is large scale tendency to promote sources such as Xhufi, while on the other hand removing multiple academic publications that don't fit with Xhufi's POV. One example is the removal of published works by A. Spiro (linguist of the University of Tirana) with the excuse that he doesn't agree with the national POV as Ktrimi explained [[130]]. Removals&reverts are performed in wp:TAGTEAMING fashion, as shown here: [[131]]. Also several wp:RS have been removed due to the same as part of the same fashion (to name a view scholars: Skendi, Vakalopoulos, Hasiotis, Tsiknakis, Kofos) in favor to POV narratives by Xhufi. Those editors that insist on the removal of those authors never filled an RSN they just resort in TAGTEAMING.Alexikoua (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Peloponnese

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack: I think it is getting out of control and spilling over even more articles: the accounts from the Albania Topic Area are again brute-forcing their new additions to more articles, such as Peloponnese today, and that's only one day after the similar incidents at Parga, where, once again, they disregarded any need for achieving WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, having ignored what WP:ONUS says. Even if I agreed/disagreed with the new additions and intervening the one way or the other, I have no faith that my voice matters anymore in Wikipedia in front of this large WP:TAGTEAM of editors who always get things done their preferred way through edit-warring instead of WP:BRD and following the guidelines by seeking WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION at the relevant talk pages. IMO, the whole editiorial behavior of disregarding Wikipedia's rules, is in my opinion really worrisome, since it is extremely disruptive and shows that the one side with numerical superiority has become unstoppable and is acting as if it WP:OWN Wikipedia, and can do whatever it wants, disrupting the normal editorial progress. And of course, I can't think of where myself to go complain about that new incident! Technically, they didn't violate 3RR, so the 3RR Noticeboard is not really an option here, so Coldtrack's words: "I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely." echoe now louder than ever. I am posting here for one last time, because WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, the policy in Wikipedia for such behaviors in disputes, states that: "Issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard, and may be taken to the arbitration committee for more complex disputes.". Any help from the Admins will be really appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, please name the members of this "cabal" or "tag team", provide diffs of the most problematic edits, and inform those editors of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry to bother you but may I ask if the diffs have to be from a specific article only? Because the issue spans multiple articles such as Parga before Peloponnese, and even Greek War of Independence before that, and more. I'm mentioning these 3 articles here for now because they are fresh in my memory and happen to be the most recent cases, all of them occuring during the current month, September 2022). If any clarity is provided on the criteria for the diffs you seek as to determine the range of diffs allowed to present here, that will be appreciated and I will try to do my best. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, no, the diffs do not need to be limited to one article, but they should clearly show the problematic behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are disputes where many editors from Greece and Albania find an interest to edit. SR will only show some diffs of "Albanian accounts" reverting "Greek accounts". @Cullen328: why do not you ask SR why they see a "cabal" or "tag teaming" only among "Albanian accounts" and not among "Greek accounts" too? I am not saying there is "tag teaming" among "Greek accounts", there is no evidence for any kind of "tag teaming". I just think that these "tag teaming" accusations are personal attacks against perceived opponents. As such, without clear evidence of a "cabal", they should result in a block for personal attacks or at least a warning. These "tag teaming" accusations have become common among some Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, that is why I am asking for evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, if you are aware of any issues of editorial misconduct, then it will be appreciated if you bring them to the admin's attention.

Now, if you allow me, I can't help but express my concerns about your reply's tone suggesting a culture of collective responsibility by pointing that "other sides did that too". You are reminded that no side has immunity from the project's rules - everybody here is to be scrutinized for their actions, including me (per WP:BOOMERANG) and that's a fact.

In case you missed what my concerns here are: is the fact accounts appearing collectively in certain articles the Greece topic area on articles which most of these accounts never edited before (since their focus is mainly the Albania topic area), yet are quick to edit war instead of discussing and seeking a compromise, at the expense of Wikipedia's guidelines, consensus and dispute resolution procedures. Resulting in all these articles in the Greece topic area having currently a revision not reflecting a talk page consensus, and the newly-added content to them isn't the result of compromises between the sides, is rather a revision imposed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of such walls of text, post what you think is evidence of "tag teaming". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I am working on it, and will have something to present very shortly. It is a fair amount of work, so please bear with me. Khirurg (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This report has been open for 2-1/2 days, and so far, we have:

• no lists of alleged "cabal" or "tag team" members, and
• no required notifications to the accused, and
• no reports to the reliable sources noticeboard, and
• no reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and
• no set of diffs showing a pattern of disruptive editing.

Instead, we have unsupported assertions that an Albanian academic is unreliable (maybe he is and maybe he isn't) and unsubstantiated accusations that unnamed editors who work on Albanian topics are misbehaving. To say that I am unimpressed at this point is an understatement. Maybe I will wake up tomorrow morning to find ample evidence. But so far, nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies for making you wait. It is not intentional, just I am back from my work in real life and I do not have access to my PC from work. Since you clarified to me that the report doesn't have to be limited to a select few articles, and since the issue spans more articles than the fingers of our hands, its obvious that I will need some time to prepare the large report. In this context, I was hopeful that the ANI can give me the required time to work on the reports on an issue that has been spanning in time range not a single month but whole years? If the ANI is eager to close the current discussion, thats fine, I can open a new one once I have it ready. I speak only for myself though, I cant speak for editors Khirurg and Ktrimi991, though, whether they got their/any reports to submit and if they can do that even faster than me, then maybe the ANI can give them a chance.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not willing to make "tag teaming" accusations here; after all those are controversial Balkan topics that can easily attract attention from editors. Editing an article is not illegal. In any case, I am waiting for the evidence you and Khirurg will provide. If admins judge it is of value, I can enrich it with more evidence. There are many cases to be discussed in that case, not only among "Albanian accounts". But I really doubt admins will find your evidence of value; as I said, articles are open for editing to every editor. Just editing an article does not make you part of a "tag team". And even if one does see "tag teaming", proving it is extremely difficult. Cullen328, for the record, last November Khirurg was warned and then blocked by User:Bbb23 after making accusations including "tag teaming" accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. I don't know what happened between you and Khirurg last November, but I have my serious concerns and I am not alone here; such concerns are shared on the ANI by least 2 other editors too, which itself is more than enough to require ANI attention this time. If indeed there is no tag-teaming as you claim, then there is nothing the other editors may be afraid of. The report will be submitted and left upon the Admins to evaluate. If the Admins deem these incidents to not be a case of Tag-teaming and conclude that there is no such behavioral pattern, then the filler ought to trust and accept their judgement and offer a honest apology to the other editors for which these concerns are about. In mean time, it is recommended that all editors familiarize and abide by the Wikipedia's guidelines, because even if the Admins do not deem these incidents or what happened at Peloponnese to be a case of tag-teaming, still is a serious disruption violating Wikipedia's guidelines regarding dispute resolutions and consensus-building, not a mere "Just editing an article" as you might think here. Now if you excuse me, expect no more responses before the report's submission. It is just "walls of text" as you said. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not the first time you make such accusations and like I said sometime ago, this is just WP:WITCHHUNT! I hope this time ends once and for all because I am sick of it. Taking part in those hot Balkan topics is normal for anyone. All of you do the same even in Albanian related topics from the north to the south and no one has accused any of you of Team Tagging. Some of you has taken part in discussions about the name of some unknown towns in Kosovo, which to me is quite bizarre to say the least, but no one has ever accused you of something. Now you are accusing "Albanian accounts" why the take part in Albanian related topics? Several Admins has intervened in lot of those discussions and for the most part, changes were confirmed and the articles were improved. Have a good day! -- Bes-ARTTalk 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence

OK, here we go. There is a group of editors who all share a similar background, as can be seen by their contribs, that behaves in a matter best described as WP:TAGTEAM on Balkan articles. The main purpose is to circumvent 3RR so as to prevent insertion of undesired material, and insert disputed material by brute force. It has been going on for a long time (off the top of my head I would say it started in early 2020), but it has been getting steadily worse in that past few months, when Çerçok (talk · contribs) returned from a 3 month break, and has reached an absolute crescendo in recent days (the first six examples are from the past few days alone). Now, while it is very common for editors who share interests to participate in the same disputes, as the evidence below will show, the nature of the behavior in question is of markedly different intensity and quantity. Particularly noticeable are instances of editors who have never shown the slightest interest in an article showing up to revert within minutes or even seconds, suggesting some form of coordination, possibly via live chat. Also of note is the fact that some of these articles are absolutely peripheral to the Albania topic area, yet the intensity of the behavior is the same as if they were core articles. The evidence below is arranged roughly chronologically. I am aware it is very long, but just to give you an idea of the intensity of the disruption, this is what I was able to gather quickly going off my memory, and even then this list is not exhaustive. As this evidence was gathered somewhat hastily, if you see any mistakes please point them out and I'd be happy to correct them. If the below evidence is too much and you just want to focus on the most egregious examples, I'd say those are International Recognition of Kosovo, Greek War of Independence, Himara, List of Albanians in Greece, and Messapic language. Update: Since I filed this report, my watchlist has been extremely quiet. I don't think it's a coincidence. Cullen328, Coldtrack, I was wondering if you had a chance to view the evidence and had any feedback, in particular as to what might contribute an appropriate venue for it (ANI does not appear to be the right venue).

• 0. Kitsos Tzavelas Article history: When Botushali got involved in an edit-war at Kitsos Tzavelas, Alltan shows up to revert within minutes at an article he had never edit before [132]' or shown any interest in previously. These are the same two users that used identical edit-summaries with seconds of each other at another article [133] [134]. He is then backed up by User:Ahmet Q. [135], who has also not edited the article previously.

• 1. International Recognition of Kosovo, 7 reverts in ~48 hours by 5 different users. Article history: Initial, non-revert edit by Uniacademic [136], revert by Ktrimi991 [137], Maleschreiber [138], S.G ReDark [139] (a relatively new user who had never edited the article before), Ktrimi again [140], Ahmet Q. [141], Ahmet Q. again [142], followed within minutes by Durazz0 [143], who prior to that hadn't edited in weeks. Durazz0 in particular is not very active lately [144], but always shows up at just the right time to revert [145] [146], !vote [147], or complain to an admin on behalf of another user [148] [149]. Attempt at dispute resolution in the talkpage was initiated by the other party [150]/

• 2. Greek War of Independence, 12 reverts by 5 different users in a 4 day period (not including 3 days of page protection). Article history: Cercok [151], Excine who had never edited the article before, Ktrimi991 [152], Ktrimi991 [153], Cercok [154] (as soon as the page protection expired, Alltan [155], Alltan [156], Ahmet Q. [157], Ahmet Q. [158], Ktrimi991 [159], Ktrimi991 [160], Ahmet Q. [161].

• 3. Amantia, 2 reverts by 2 users who had never edited the article before, within 12 hours. Article history: Ahmet Q. [162] (never edited the article before), Lezhjani1444 who had never edited the article before, within minutes.

• 4. Parga, 5 reverts within ~24 hours by three different users, one of whom had never edited the article before. Article history: Cercok [163], followed by Alltan [164], Alltan [165], Uniacademic who has never edited the article before, Cercok [166].

• 5. Himara [167]: Maleschreiber [168], Maleschreiber [169], Ktrimi [170], Cercok [171], Cercok [172], Lezhjani1444 who has never edited the article before, Alltan [173], Botushali who has never edited the article before, then very interestingly Alltan shows up a few seconds later with a nearly identical edit-summary, then Cercok [174], then Cercok again [175]. The use of an identical edit summary by Alltan and Botushali seems to sugges that they had agreed upon this edit-summary off-wiki (e.g. via live chat) and Botushali beat Alltan to it by a few second. Something similar happened back in June at Kosovo between Uniacademic and Truthseeker2006 [176].

• 6. Peloponnese, 6 reverts by 3 users in 3 hours. Article history: Ahmet Q. [177], Ahmet Q. [178], Maleschreiber [179], Alltan within three minutes even though he has never edited the article before, Alltan again [180]. Attempt at dispute resolution initiated by me.

• 7. Arvanites [181]: Ahmet [182], Ahmet [183], Botushali [184].

• 8. Epirus revolt of 1611 [185]: Cercok [186], Alltan who had never edited the article before, Cercok [187], Alltan [188], Cercok [189]. Then again several days later: Maleschreiber [190], Alltan [191], Ahmet Q. [192], Cercok [193].

• 9. Dropull [194]: Lezhjani1444 [195], Lezhjani1444 [196], Lezhjani1444 [197], Alltan [198], Alltan [199], Ktrimi991 [200].

• 10. List of Albanians in Greece [201]: Ahmet [202], Ahmet [203], Maleschreiber who had never edited the article before, Ahmet [204], Maleschreiber [205], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, within minutes, Ahmet [206]

• 11. Template:Greeks in Albania [207]: Ahmet [208], Alltan [209], Ahmet [210], Alltan [211], Ahmet [212].

• 12. Struga [213]: Alltan [214], Durazz0 [215], Durazz0 [216], Durazz0 [217], Botushali [218], Botushali [219].

• 13. Bratonozici [220]: Botushali [221], Botushali [222], Alltan [223], Alltan [224], Botushali [225], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before.

• 14. Piperi (tribe) [226]: Botushali [227], Alltan [228], Botushali [229], Durraz0 [230].

• 15. Kuči (tribe) [231]: Maleschreiber [232], Ahmet [233], Alltan [234].

• 16. Bjelopavlici [235]: Botushali [236], Alltan [237], Alltan [238], Botushali [239], Durazz0 [240].

• 17. Pristina [241]: Maleschreiber [242], Ktrimi [243], Ktrimi [244], Alltan [245].

• 18. Messapic language [246]: [247] (note the source falsification about "dialect"), Βατο [248], Βατο [249], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, Ktrimi991 [250], [251]. In this instance, they ganged up on the hapless 3knolls, who had not idea what he was dealing with.

• 19. Bar, Montenegro [252]: Ktrimi991 [253], Ktrimi991 [254], Maleschreiber [255], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, Maleschreiber [256], Ahmet [257].

• 20. Illyrian Emperors [258]: Ahmet [259], Βατο who had never edited the article before, Maleschreiber who had never edited the article before.

Of note is that Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs) has on several occasions asked users to activate their wikipedia email, ostensibly so as to "share sources" [260], but soon after this was done, the user Ahmet Q. instructed to activate emails starts showing to !vote [261] at RfCs and RMs that Ahmet Q. had just !voted, sometimes within minutes [262], despite these articles being relatively obscure. Ahmet Q. also did the same thing on Wikimedia Commons [263] with user Cercok on August 25. It could be a coincidence, but it is my impression that the intensity of the tag-teaming has been especially strong since then.

Also of note is that as a result of the tag-teaming on the Montenegrin tribes articles (Piperi, Bratonozici, Bjelopavlici etc.), Boki (talk · contribs) eventually became discouraged and gave up [264]. While a bit rash and inexperienced, this user seemed competent and promising, and this is a good example of the kind of result that tag-teaming can result in.

In closing, I'd like to point out that while I fully expect the accused parties to come out guns blazing and counter-accuse, there is a fundamental asymmetry here: Articles such as Greek War of Independence and Peloponnese are central to the Greece topic area, but peripheral to the Albania topic area - in 15 years of editing wikipedia, I have not seen editors from the Albania topic area edit these articles, until now, that is. So while it is to be expected that any perceived POV-push in these articles will result in a response from Greek topic area editors, given that many will have these articles watchlisted, it is highly unusual to see an even more intense response from Albania topic editors. Individually, it could be that some of the instances of apparent tag-teaming I have described could just be coincidences with a perfectly sound explanation, or just garden-variety edit-warring, but when the evidence is viewed in its totality, I strongly believe something is going on here. Whether it is off-wiki messaging (as I think is the case with at least some participants), email, or just contribs-following and a tacit agreement to back each other, I cannot say, but clearly something's up here, this isn't normal. I've been editing for 15 years, and I've never seen anything this intense, this massive, and this coordinated for so long. Khirurg (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As an editor not mentioned, but who very well could be, and someone who 90% of those articles mentioned above have it in his watchlist and followed all the discussions in question (mostly not intervening at all) I can say without a doubt that in absolutely most of the cases the editors were invited in the talk page to discuss the reverts or the changes. And many of them were resolved there with consensus by the editors in question. See for example Struga, Himara, and others' talk pages. What you have forgotten to put here are articles that you have taken part in yourself and resulted in you getting blocked or being warned about it because of your language used against the same editors in TP discussions. All you do whenever you don't like a change or sources like Xhufi is open discussion like this one, remove it at all costs, get the editors blocked, and restore the versions you like. And when no admin supports you, you just start another conspiracy against "Albanian accounts". -- Bes-ARTTalk 22:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, do not forget to notify the editors you are mentioning in your report. They will want to know. Add the following code to their talk pages please: {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg: when you post accusations, you should at the very least notify said accused users, (an admin asked both you and SilentResident to do so many times already). Now, all the articles which Khirurg mentioned are under the scope of WikiProject Albania, and some of them are of top importance. I dare to consider myself one of the "veteran" users (been here for about 2 years) and I don't see what exactly the problem is that Khirurg is supposedly so concerned about. Articles which are under the scope of a small WikiProject will, at one point or another, inevitably concern most active users which are interested in such subjects. There are in total maybe 15-20 or so active “Albanian users”, so it's all too normal that they'll end up editing the same articles eventually. This is being made by Khirurg to sound as if the cases where they tend to agree show that they always agree with each or that they all support the same edits, but this is simply a misrepresentation by Khirurg. There are countless cases where some editors who agree on one thing, disagree on another or don't even edit similar articles. Even Khirurg's examples show such a thing because he has just cherry picked cases where some users will agree on a small issue, but there's still no overall agreement across all articles. What he has decided to leave out includes all the other cases where the same users who agree one thing, disagree with each other as is normal for all humans who don't cooperate. For myself I'll note that in Aliko, one of the articles which belong to the same subject as the articles listed by Khirurg, an edit I made [265][266] was reverted by Maleschreiber[267]. Other recent examples of Maleschreiber reverting me which come to mind include [268] and [269], this being one of the articles used as “evidence” by Khirurg. I also recall a case of me being reverted by Botushali, which happened just this July [270]. So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali. Is this what people who are tag-teaming do, or is it what people who share similar interests but both agree and disagree occasionally do? It’s more likely the latter and not the former. Most of these subjects are very closely related, so when Khirurg claims that an edit of mine is the "first" I've ever done in the article Peloponnese(region of Greece), he somehow leaves out that I have hundreds of edits in articles which involve Albanians in Greece. Since August all 6 new articles I've created are about the history of Albanians in Greece [271]. This is a subject which I'm very passionate and interested about, but Khirurg presents my edits as if I just learned about the subject a minute before I made the edit. Another thing which Khirurg omits is what the disputes are about. In most of the cases, they exist because a couple of users (which in 9/10 cases include Khirurg) want to remove WP:RS from articles. Now, these reliable sources don't come just from Albanian historians, but are in fact most of the times works by ‘’Greek’’ historians whom some users are always trying to remove. My edit in Peloponnese exists solely because the same users who are always doing such things tried to remove Georgios Liakopoulos, a respected Greek historian from the Max Planck institute from the article: [272][273][274]. What exactly is illegitimate about my edit? Is Khirurg saying that some users can remove reliable sources, but users who have spent hundreds of hours writing about these subjects can't even edit related articles? This isn't even the first report by Khirurg where he tries to invoke interests in common subjects by people who have the same cultural background as a reason to ask for someone to get sanctioned. In an SPI against Ktrimi991 [275] Khirurg claimed that he is a sock of a banned user, essentially because both are Albanians and are interested in Albanian history.

So what is Khirurg's evidence? A series of edits which show that sometimes user’s who have similar interests, will agree with each other. In the same articles in which Khirurg finds agreement between some users, he should note all instances where all those who agree with each other either don't get involved in an article or actively disagree. In addition, he should note all instances where we find agreement on the "opposite" side of the aisle between users from WikiProject Greece and in fact in all instances (like the Peloponnese article) two or more users from WP Greece will do the same exact edit/revert (including Khirurg). This isn't "tag teaming" or disruptive when done by Khirurg, yet when other users have partially similar interests do it, it can only be disruptive and can never mean just a genuine interest in a subject.

In conclusion, I see one more content dispute which involves Khirurg and other long time users devolving into accusations by Khirurg that they are tag teaming just because they disagree with Khirurg about subjects which (as far as I remember) many of the mentioned editors always disagreed with him. Khirurg has repeated the same accusation in the past when he was blocked and this is the reply he got by admin Bbb23: "Second, you have accused other editors, some who have been around here for a long time (as have you), of tag teaming just because they disagree with you. That constitutes a personal attack. I strongly urge you to amend your behavior, or you will find yourself blocked." [276]

So yes Khirurg, this is indeed yet another outrageous case of editors who are interested in Albanian-related subjects editing articles related to Albanian subjects. A troubling development indeed.Alltan (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This way tl;dr, but just to note that of the 20 articles I've listed, only half are within WikiProject Albania. And that anyway does not explain the lightning quick reverts to articles you have never edited before, like Peloponnese (within three minutes). Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Khirurg has listed twenty articles, out of which I (accused of tag-teaming) have edited only four. 4 out of 20... And I am often in disagreement with the people Khirurg accuses me of being in league with, see:

- with Ktrimi here: [277]

- with Maleschrieber here: [278]

- with AlexBachmann here:[279]

I contribute to Wikipedia as I know best, following wiki guidelines and adding RS content. I do not coordinate with anyone. I agree or disagree with each editor based on the merit/reliability of their edits. I am sure I am not an exception. Khirurg seems to have misportrayed the contributions of other editors here just like he has mine. These accusations are simply ridiculous. Çerçok (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The wp:TAGTEAM pattern is way too obvious but what surprised me personally was a strategy of full coordination as in the case of Himara Revolt of 1596: taking turns in the TAGTEAM process. So the revert sequence here is:

• [[280]] Cercok,
• [[281]] Alltan,
• [[282]] Ktrimi (who never participated before and without trace at talkpage), and then again
• [[283]] Alltan
• [[284]] Ktrimi
• [[285]] Alltan

After his 2nd revert Ktrimi991 immediately filled a report against me in order to block me for 3rr, but no wonder this disruptive pattern has been immediately noticed by uninvolved editor @Coldtrack: [[286]] [[287]]

Ktrimi also provides support to the more hesitant (revert)-editors of this team by removing warning messages in their talkpages: Here [[[288]], after Uniacademic performed a rv although he never showed any trace in article and tp before [[ [[289]]]] (as Khirurg noted above). The same support is also provided by Alltan [[290]]) obviously to encourage a more massive and coordinated campaign of this kind.

It is crystal clear that their main purpose is to increase their revert-warring fire power in order to promote a certain national POV and at the same time discouraging multiple editors from productive editing.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, if my name is going to be brought up, I’d greatly appreciate being notified. Now, in regard to this report, I am actually offended that I am even being mentioned as a part of such a thing. The diffs of me on pages about Montenegrin tribes of Albanian origin are particularly annoying; if you bothered to check those diffs, you will find I was actually the first account to initiate the change on the article that there was a subsequent edit war over which was resolved in the TP. In fact, if you check my edit history, you will notice a lot of my work focuses on Albanian tribes. I have created multiple pages based on this topic and revamped or worked on several other pages also in this topic. Regarding Struga, I really do not see what is wrong. I participate heavily in Albanian-related topics in North Macedonia, which is why there is overlap between me and Alltan, who also seems to participate heavily in such topics. If you check the edit history there, it becomes extremely clear that I have contributed a lot to the page over time, not just for those diffs.

Arvanites is obviously extremely related to the Albanian topic area considering it literally is an article on the historic Albanians of Greece – my contributions to the Souliotes (another tribal-like Albanian community in Greece) page should clearly indicate that I am already involved in such matters. Himara is also of interest, I have monitored that article for a while and have been looking for sources on a particular matter; nonetheless, it is a site that seems to have played a role for Albanians in the Middle Ages, which is something I have also done much work on.

To conclude, the accusations made against me here are baseless, illogical and outright wrong. Furthermore, this accusation of multiple editors in the Albanian topic area working in collusion I find to be a clear application of double standards; multiple Greek topic area editors seem to collude and combine their efforts on small villages and the like in Greece and southern Albania, not that I am accusing them of tag teaming, but it is the same principle. However, what I find revealing is the collaboration of editors who focus on Greek topic areas when it comes to articles in Kosovo, or better yet, Serbia. When regarding the city of Niš in Serbia, which I have added to, Khirurg somehow randomly began to participate in the discussion – despite not being involved in the slightest in the Serbian topic area – petitioning for the removal of sources that discuss the existence of Proto-Albanians in the region [[291]].

Now, there have been many Kosovo RM’s, most of which I have played a role in, in recent years. Khirurg and other Greek editors have shown up together to vote !oppose and have never shown any interest to improve said articles, let alone participate in the general topic area of Kosovo. What should I do in my case? Complain that Khirurg and these other editors are tag-teaming against RMs? Khirurg's post boils down to the fact that there are many editors who are interested in the same subjects in the Balkans and the large majority do not agree with Khirurg regardless of their background. This isn't a problem of wikipedia and it's certainly not a reason to report anyone, but it is particularly interesting to see these editors in the Kosovo topic area. When I was looking at previous RM’s in preparation for my own requests, I noticed editors from the Greek topic area involving themselves in these RM’s which I found extremely strange:

• RM of Peja [[292]], users of note who voted !oppose in this discussion were Khirurg, Alexikoua, and SilentResident.
• RM of Lipjan (initiated by me) [[293]], Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose
• RM of Vushtrri (initiated by me) [[294]], surprise surprise, Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose here too.
• RM of Malisheva (2020, not initiated by me) [[295]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua
• RM of Malisheva (2021, not initiated by me) [[296]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua

For such small, unknown towns to receive convenient attention from the Greek topic area editors during RM requests seems awfully intriguing. Nonetheless, just wanted to get this out there so that all admins may observe the double standard here and perhaps something else at play. Botushali (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Botushali: you provided very few and sporadic edits that go back more than two years ago, nevertheless Khirurg provided solid clear evidence and this concerns quite recent activity. It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above (not simply on voting but on revert warring). Most important this TAGTEAM pattern is massive and quite active as uninvolved editors have immediately noticed.Alexikoua (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, just as you have the right to edit, revert, remove content so do others and I'm one of the people who has written the most content about these topics, so what's the accusation? I'm editing what I always edit or is the accusation that in this article Cercok and I agree, even though we disagree other times? If that's the accusation, then why you don't you mention all the (daily) articles where you are in disagreement with someone active in WikiProject Albania but nobody else joins the dispute? Where was a tag-team to support Ktrimi when you had a dispute with him in Lefter Talo just two days ago? While we're on this topic why don't you add all the diffs where you and Khirurg monthly do the same reverts? Parga: Alexikoua [297] Khirurg [298] Vuno: Alexikoua [299] Khirurg [300] Albanians in Greece: Alexikoua [301] Khirurg [302] Why doesn't tag-team apply to the two of you but applies to everyone else who you disagree with? Don't all others have the right to agree with each other in some topics or are you and Khirurg the only users who have the right to agree with each other?:Alltan (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan, Khirurg filled a detailed report that concerns wp:TAGTEAM, a disruptive pattern that was also noticed by uninvolved editors at the Himara Revolt of 1596. This is obviously not just about edit, revert or remove content, but reverting in wp:NINJA fashion without trace of participation at any discussion as part of wp:TAGTEAM & BRD breaching while even encouraging such a disruptive activity (i.e. removing warning messages from the talkpages) among more hesitant members of the (TAG)TEAM is a serious accusation.Alexikoua (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I already mentioned once that decorating your comments with Wikipedia policies and with strong wording such as "crystal clear" do not make your arguments stronger. In your latest comment above this one, you said nothing of importance to attempt and refute Alltan's comment. If you will not engage in real debating, I ask you to desist from writing these comments; what you're doing is called WP:BLUDGEON. This report is already large enough. Super Ψ Dro 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexikoua, saying that something is ”solid, clear evidence” does not make it so. In fact, this whole report is a besmirchment of many solid editors included myself, and I expect Khirurg to apologise for even mentioning me in such a way when I devote so much of my time to Wikipedia as a volunteer. Besides the fact that certain editors from the Greek topic area, including yourself, randomly collude at convenient times in completely unrelated RM’s of relatively unknown towns in Kosovo to vote against name changes to the Albanian form (interesting, right?), I also have below a list of recent cross-editing which you would call “tag-teaming” when it doesn’t concern you (again, double standards):

• 18th August 2022, Dropull article: Khirurg [303], Khirurg [304], Alexikoua [305], all in the space of 2 hours
• 13th September 2022, Himariote dialect article: Alexikoua [306], Khirurg [307]
• 25th-27th August 2022, Epirus Revolt of 1611 article: Khirurg reverts changes by Alltan made to an addition initially added by Alexikoua [308], Khirurg [309], Alexikoua [310], Khirurg again [311]
• 16th-18th August 2022, Chameria article: Alexikoua [312], Khirurg [313]
• 22nd September 2022, Himara article: Khirurg [314], Alexikoua [315], Khirurg [316]
• 15th September 2022, Himara article: Alexikoua [317], Khirurg [318]
• 6th September 2022, Souliotes article: Alexikoua [319], Alexikoua [320], Alexikoua almost violating 3RR rule [321], Khirurg [322]

Now, is this evidence of tag-teaming, or is it only tag-teaming when it is not involving Alexikoua and Khirurg? As far as I am concerned, this is exactly what I have been supposedly called out for, but I am not “tag-teaming”. I am editing topics that are relevant to WikiProject Albania, as I have always done, and nothing more. I am awaiting Khirurg’s apology for slandering my name and completely disrespecting the time and effort I put into Wikipedia – such accusations should not be taken lightly. I’ve noticed that he has already been in trouble for this behaviour prior to this report. Hopefully an admin can take control of the situation and stop this once and for all. Perhaps a block or even topic ban would be in order so that Khirurg may finally halt these behaviours that completely disrespect and devalue other editors here on Wikipedia. Alexikoua, baseless statements like “It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above” do not prove anything – above I have provided reverts as well, but is it still too weak simply because it mentions your name? If you are going to accuse me of tag-teaming, I will be disappointed and will expect an apology from you too should an admin clear my name. Using strong wording doesn’t make your opinions or comments superior to anyone else’s, and you cannot simply dismiss things with no valid reasoning. The reverts may not be so bad – but the voting is extremely suspicious and I urge an admin to look into it. Botushali (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm actually there was no 3rr breach on Souliotes if you mean that. You also ignore to state that the above edits were always accompanied by tp participation: in most cases you point there was no more than 1rv per 24h and strictly following wp:BRD, no drive-by reverts or accounts that came from nowhere and simply wanted to support a supposed common national campaign as in the case of Khirurg's extensive report.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Support a supposed common national campaign..." do you know how ridiculous that sounds? What exactly are you trying to implicate? Even then, most reverts I make I involve myself in the TP discussions for, unless it's not necessary. If you're innocent according to what you wrote above, then so am I. Very flawed report, very flawed comments and very flawed rebuttal of what I have put above. You RV'ed the same change three times (so correction on my part, almost* violating 3RR), and to prevent you from going to four, Khirurg came in to do the RV. If that's the case, I do not know, but had it been me or any other accused editor here, you would consider it evidence of "tag-teaming" due to the double standards you have quite clearly shown during the course of this report. Furthermore, I see that there was no comment in regards to the voting? You know the votes that uninvolved editors from the Greece topic area - who do not edit, comment or patrol pages in WikiProject Kosovo and have never done so - somehow randomly casted (same vote every time by the way, always !oppose) whenever an RM request was made to move a page to its common, official Albanian name? Very strange phenomenon, isn't it? Botushali (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What I don't see in the above walls of text is an explanation for how come you reverted at Himara within 14 minutes, even though you had never edited that article before, and how come literally seconds later Alltan showed up with an identical summary (but the edit was blank because you had already reverted). Khirurg (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why you're asking me. I've edited many other articles like Himara and I have it on my watchlist - as I said above I've been monitoring it for a while. Why shouldn't I revert there if I disagree with an edit? Why Alltan copied my edit summary is something which he should reply about but he already has done so as I can see above ("So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali"). What's the accusation? Unlike you and Alexikoua who always have the exact same reverts, I have been in actual content disputes and disagreements with Alltan and I have reverted him. [323] just a few months ago. Botushali (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've edited many other articles like Himara doesn't explain how you showed up to revert within minutes at that article, despite never having shown any interest before. Your claim that you had been monitoring it for a whileis not verifiable. Your revert of Alltan occurred after first reverting me and insulting me Example text and the matter was referred to ANI [324]. So much more likely that was the reason, than any purported "disagreement". Khirurg (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the article in my watchlist, bud. I've shown interest many times before in articles in which Albania and Greece overlap. Perhaps me monitoring it cannot be verified, but neither can me not monitoring it. The revert - if you look at the source, it did not even indicate what was said, so that's why I reverted Alltan. ANI didn't even do anything about what I said to you because it really wasn't that bad - especially in comparison to you and your track record of disrespect that you have littered throughout TP's and edit summaries towards your fellow editors. This whole report disregards the hard work of the editors you are accusing, including myself. I also would like to point out that you are yet to explain why you and other editors here have voted !oppose on articles that have nothing to do with the Greek topic area - rather, it is a topic area you have never attempted to improve, work on or add to, but conveniently you decide to vote !oppose when RM's are made attempting to move said articles to their rightful Albanian title. All in all, your unfounded conspiracy theories are getting boring and simply tiring - what's next? Tin foil hats? Botushali (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Be sarcastic all you want, but rest assured this is just starting, and there will be admin feedback, no matter what. By the way my watchlist has been extremely quiet literally since I filed this report. I wonder why. Khirurg (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Good, I hope there's admin feedback, and I hope the admin tells you to quit this nonsense. That last line is exactly what I am talking about, not everything is a big conspiracy against you. It's just becoming a joke at this point... Botushali (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I do not think that the aforementioned articles and diffs constitute "evidence of tagteaming". Someone might do a reasonable assumption that there is tagteaming going on, but the most profound explanation (Occam's razor) is that the users accused are watchlisting the pages. Albanian and Greek history intermingle too much and areas of debate (either mostly Greek or mostly Albanian) attract the attention of both Albanians and Greeks that are interested in history. Cinadon36 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The major problem with the report is that it is invoking WP:TAGTEAM which is neither a policy, nor even a well-defined concept. This is made clear in the first sentence of WP:FACTION: Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial[note 1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. note 1: Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced a concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work In this context, there's nothing to discuss in terms of policy because there is no policy to debate about. We can still use the discussion to define it in better ways so that it's not invoked as in the report. I think that for WP:TAGTEAM to exist it has be shown that a group of editors a)have a consensus which they push around by b)circumventing official channels of consensus-building. Point b) cannot be shown in this report because there are many discussions at all talkpages about finding a consensus and one is usually found eventually. The problem which Khirurg seems to have is that there are many more editors who support specific revisions and few who support specific other revisions. This isn't a problem of policy. Consensus tends to reflect the desire of the majority of editors to the extent that they can back it back up with sources and policies. There will never be a case where consensus will reflect what just 2 editors want (e.g. Khirurg and Alexikoua) but not what 20 others want to the extent that it can be backed with sources and policies(WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). There are many editors active in articles under the scope of WikiProject Albania and they don't coordinate and they certainly don't agree with each other on many subjects, but it's natural that to a degree a common cultural background will translate to a similar understanding of some subjects. This partial commonality is what Khirurg's diffs reflect in the same way that diffs which show Alexikoua's and Khirurg's common reverts highlight another partial commonality in reasoning. Point a) is where major flaws can be found because there is no consensus which these editors share. Others highlighted instances where they revert or disagree with each other. It can't be shown that a "WP:TAGTEAM" - even in a colloquial, non-policy manner - exists if the "members" of the team don't share the same consensus. Khirurg has created a narrative which I'm certain that he himself knows that it can't stand upon scrutiny. I'll highlight some instances which mention me in a very inaccurate way:
  • Illyrian emperors - according to a Khirurg I placed a revert in this article even though I had no prior edits. This makes it seem as if my only purpose for reverting was to support other reverts. In fact, for the past 2 years I have been re-writing parts of articles about individual Illyrian emperors[325][326], so me placing a revert at the list article about them is quite ordinary.
  • Kuči (tribe) is one of the main articles related to Albanian tribes and all editors involved in improving relevant articles have engaged with it. I have written close to 40% of that article and Alltan 14.5%.
  • Bar, Montenegro: Some were reverts were listed, but there was a discussion at RfC about these changes and the majority of editors supported them. There was disagreement and consensus-building which produced results(Talk:Bar, Montenegro#RfC). Consensus-building wasn't circumvented or ignored.
  • Epirus revolt of 1611: Khirurg leaves out the fact that I disagreed with Cercok too [327][328] and changed his edits as well. I've written 28% of the article. How is it possible that two users are acting as WP:FACTION if they disagree and change the edits of each other? A key problem when we perceive any situation in us vs them terms is that we often fail to see that the Others are separate individuals. That 2 editors disagree with a third editor doesn't mean that they agree with each other. This discussion absorbed much time from several editors for no reason and it should at least with a warning that if someone has an issue with a specific editor they should report just that editor to AE where the activity of both can be scrutinized instead of dragging in many other irrelevant editors. Long discussions shouldn't be repeated at ANI without a clear context based in policy. There's always a huge backlog at all boards because of such discussions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  At Illyrian Emperors, you had zero edits to the article prior to reverting, and yet you reverted within minutes. Your explication that you have been re-writing parts of the articles about individual Illyrian emperors does not cut it. At Kuci, it doesn't matter what % of the article you have written: What matters is that we see the same pattern as all the other articles, namely, you and the others reverting round-robin fashion to prevent changes you do not want. It's the same pattern in all the articles. As for your disagreements with Cercok, those are trivial. Anyone can have disagreements like that. But none of that changes the central finding of this report. That you and a group of editors with similar views have engaged in round-robin reverting to either ram through changes by brute force, or to prevent undesirable additions. And in all these cases, neither you nor the other editors initiated attempts as dispute resolution (talkpage discussion, RfC, DRN, etc.). It was always the other party. Khirurg (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist as I've worked on most articles under that list. What is abnormal about me reverting when I was online about a subject I'm heavily involved in? Articles about Albanian tribes like Kuçi are some of the most high traffic articles under WikiProject Albania. I don't know what makes you think that this article could only get attention because of WP:TAGTEAM. It's interesting - from an anthropological perspective - that you consider "trivial", disagreements and reverts between two other editors but when you're reverted, that's when you consider it important. You spent too much time which you could have spent in better ways to write a long post about something which isn't a policy and you couldn't evidentiate even in the colloquial sense. The problem stems from your perception of "us vs. them". You just have to accept that everybody agrees and disagrees with everybody over a long period time. When they disagree with you, it isn't qualitatively more important as to be linked to something more than a disagreement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist - I'm sure you do now, but it strains the imagination that you had back then, and there is no way you can prove that, so it's easy to claim. But it's not just one article, it's a whole bunch of articles, and the pattern is always the same. The problem stems from a group of highly motivated and organized users that see everything as "us vs. them", and the diffs clearly show this. And not coincidentally, all this madness started in early 2020. Btw, Botushali only reverted Alltan because I brought the issue to ANI and he was afraid he'd get blocked. The rest of your post is the perfect example of what is known as gaslighting. Khirurg (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Can you stop acting like you know everything? I reverted Alltan because he misused a source, which is something I discovered upon closer inspection. You didn’t bring the issue to ANI - ElderZamzam did, but it is interesting that you immediately got involved there, and that Elder recently brought up the Xhufi discussion in a completely unrelated article despite me not being involved in the slightest with the Xhufi discussion. Are you trying to admit something here? I wonder why you implicate yourself as the person who brought the issue to ANI. Additionally, another extremely curious thing to note is that you have not discussed why you and other editors from the Greek topic area have showed up in waves on completely unrelated RM requests in WikiProject Kosovo to vote !oppose against an Albanian-titled article - keep in mind, you nor these other editors have ever shown interest in improving pages regarding Kosovo, you haven’t edited, added to or created articles in the scope of this project but somehow still manage to show up in a group to conveniently vote !oppose when an RM to an Albanian toponym is being voted on. Stop dodging the question and answer truthfully about what is going on there. If it’s plausible, although I strongly doubt it will be, fair enough - I won’t do what you do and act like I know everything whilst dismissing every ounce of reasoning as some big conspiracy towards me, gaslighting (funny that you brought it up) other people in this thread and utterly disrespecting my fellow editors. Like I said, once my name is cleared, you owe me a big apology for wasting my time on your conspiracy theories and shunning my name and reputation here. Botushali (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah sure, it must be a coincidence that you reverted me with an insulting edit-summary, then as soon as ElderZamZam reported you to ANI, you "discovered something upon closer inspection" and reverted Alltan. Yes, must be a total coincidence. Then there's the extremely interesting coincidence that you and Alltan used the same edit summary within seconds of each other The almost 40 years old source is refuted by 21st century sources and archival records present on the talk page. The almost 40 years old source is refuted by 21th century sources and archival records present on the talk page.. Come on, what's going on here? As for your accusations, I can assure you that me and ElderZamZam are not the same person (you can file an SPI if you think so), and that contribs logs are public. Khirurg (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I’ve already explained to you that this question can only be answered by Alltan, and as I’ve mentioned previously, he seems to have discussed it in his comment - genuine question, are you senile that you have to keep bringing it up when Alltan has already discussed it AND I’ve already told you that you should be asking him that question? Truly a genuine question and not a personal attack, because you seem to be running circles here with no real argument and just baseless conspiracies. Also, the first part - that ANI report was complete bogus which is why no admin did anything about it, bringing it up is just embarrassing because it didn’t affect me in the slightest. It’s not a coincidence that I make sourced edits and reverts/removals on false information - check my edit contributions. Again, you failed to answer the whole voting in Kosovo RM’s spontaneously in groups thing, must be because you have no response that you can plausibly falsify - we both know something is up there, stop dancing around in circles and answer me now for the fifth time (maybe more), why have you and other editors here (who seem to show up in all articles together with the same exact viewpoints) voted in Kosovo RM’s despite not being interested in the topic, nor having edited or created articles under said topic? Is it only to vote in spite of what you deem to be “Albanian editors” or is it only to vote against the common name simply because it’s in the Albanian language? And better yet, why is it more than just 1 of you consistently showing up for these spontaneous votes? Botushali (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, the only explanation for the fact that you guys used the same summary within seconds of each other is that you shared it offline (Discord? Whatsapp? Signal? Doesn't matter I guess). But youbeat Alltan to the revert, which is why his edit was blank. This is what's called a "smoking gun". Don't be smug that the report hasn't been actioned yet. That's only because it's too long and complex for ANI. But rest assured there are appropriate venues for it, and that's where it will go, and it will be actioned. Hurling insults ("senile") is not going to help you, and in fact is only making things worse for yourself. Same goes for your counteraccusations, especially considering that are years old. You really need some fresh material, but you got nothing, so that's why you are engaging in "diff archeology". Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  These responses get more and more absurd as time goes on - off-wiki collaboration? Really? Way I've read Alltan's explanation is that they copied my summary, but you seem far too stubborn to accept that not everyone is out to conspire against you. I am not smug about this report not being actioned - I was referring to the report against me specfically - as I do truly hope this report gets actioned so that the admins may tell you off for your behaviours and these foul accusations you keep throwing. If anything, the votes on Kosovo RM's that date from 2020-2021 show consistent collaborative meddling on pages that you have never been involved on and have never had an interest in improving - they are not "years old", and I do not need "fresh material" when you are simply refusing to explain and account for your suspicious actions on said RM's. I also hope the admins read this and see how much you dodge the topic, continuously reverting to things I or others have already explained. Botushali (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why copy an edit summary for a null edit? No, it's because he went to revert with the agreed upon edit summary. But your revert had already gone through a few seconds earlier, so there was nothing to revert, hence the null edit. As for "meddling" and "no interest in imporving", that applies to your edits in the Greek topic area, where it seems all you're interested in doing is "flag planting" and other petty POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  How about you actually ask Alltan since they made the edit? They might've just wanted to add the little ending on the end my edit summary, you'd have to ask them. Brave claims to say I push POV and the like in Greek articles, also very hypocritical coming from you. I've worked on multiple articles in the project, unlike you in the project for Kosovo, where you have done nothing. Again you avoided the question, must be guilty of something. Botushali (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Report

Page:
Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Comment:
Editor Çerçok added on 31 August an unreliable source (Pëllumb Xhufi) to the article (back then, it was titled Greek revolt of 1567–1572) but the edit was reverted as other editors with a long standing, 15+ year-long experience in the Greece topic area, who are fully aware that Xhufi is an extremist^{(the admins who cannot wait for the RSN report, may simply assess what for example the Austrian Scientific Academy does sat on Xhufi: [[[329]]: In contrast to the differentiated opinions in Greek history, institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressively nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi). Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric. Xhufi also published material-rich, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays such as Manipulimi i historisë: rasti i Epiriti This is published by the Austrian Scientific Academy at 2015])} politician and objected to him being added as a reliable source in Wikipedia: [330]. Despite reverting as there being no consensus for using Xhufi,[331] Cercok attempted to reinstate the scholar back to the article without consensus [332]. When Xhufi was removed again, editor Alltan intervened to help Cercok in re-adding Xhufi again back to the article [333] despite the other editors at talk page opposing this. Xhufi was removed -again!- and then reinstated -again- [334]. The cycle goes on and after some days of no fruitful results at the talk page in reaching an agreement about Xhufi, I have attempted to remove the disputed author and have the article reflect only on consensus, [335] but another editor, Ahmet Q. from the Albania topic area stepped in to help Cercok and Alltan: [336]. Result? As of today, and in violation of any Wikipedia's rules on WP:ONUS and WP:VER and WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, Xhufi is still on the article: [337]. The editors from the Albania topic area disregarded any legitimate concerns the opposite side has expressed in the dispute, ignored what wp:onus states that they should be doing, and brute-forcibly added the dubious scholar to the article where he remains to this day today without wp:consensus.

My own reports also included the following articles: Greek War of Independence, Parga and Peloponnese, all occurring on September month as well, as well as the other articles where similar incidents occured in the past months such as Epirus revolt of 1611 (August) and so on. Since they are now covered by editor Khirurg above who beat me in the race, I am dropping them. However, the purpose of my report remains unchanged nevertheless: which is to highlight my serious concerns that on month September -alone-, Wikipedia witnessed such large scale disruption across multiple articles of the Greece topic area with editors from the Albania topic area coming there and disregarding & ignoring our legitimate concerns, not following the normal dispute resolution procedures and wp:ONUS, and brute-forcing their changes to the articles without consensus. This has heightening my fears that this might be something the Admins may have to look after and is the reason I came here for. Sure, the other editors may be right and I am not experienced in identifying accurately whether this kind of disruption is with certainty a case of tag-teaming, but that's why there are these procedures for. For this reason, I will really appreciate the Admin's attention in evaluating, as a third party, whether this is really the case as suspected. Certain editors here counter-argued that this behavior is not Tag-teaming because it is a usual WP:BALKANS behavior; however We are not exactly experiencing everyday such a surge (if I may describe it as such) of activity by editors that aren't naturally editing this topic area, yet are going to great extend to edit-war their way to the preferred version of articles in spite of consensus and Wikipedia's other core content policy guidelines. If the admin feels that there is no such kind of disruption and that my concerns are inflated, illegitimate, or I am just seeing things where there aren't supposed to be, then I am willing to apologize to the editors for that, and also to the Wikipedia's community for wasting their valuable time. In this case, I will have no other option but refrain from raising similar concerns in the future and/or listen to any suggestions/advice on what to do if I feel there is such a pattern arising again in the future. Also, if the admin deems that my concerns were disruptive to the Wikipedia community and/or I have violated the guidelines, then I am willing to face the consequences. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I added content from at least four sources, one of which was Dr.Xhufi's book. Most of the content was from Malcolm. Dr.Xhufi has been twice unsuccessfully reported by editors who disagree with the historical facts found in his verbatim representation of primary archival sources. Dr. Xhufi's book is an academic publication that has gone through peer review and has been cited countless times in top journals.

I wish added content could be discussed based on its reliability per wikipedia guidelines, not on personal like/dislike of it. Çerçok (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There are two RSNs about Xhufi which didn't conclude that the source is unreliable, as I have explained to SR already in previous discussions. [338][339] Xhufi is a medievalist who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards and it has been positively reviewed in Studime Historike, Albania's leading historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj. It checks all boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. The quote which SilentResident picked is by an author who has even contributed to the same anthology with Xhufi [340]. The source which constantly and without stop SilentResident has been trying to remove from all articles is a respected living academic and comments such as "racist, "nationalist", "ultranationalist", "extremist", ([341][342] [343][344][345][346]) which have been written about him by SilentResident are a violation of BLP for which SilentResident has been warned to stop by admins and open a RSN (Drmies[347], Cullen328[348]) and they even have redacted her comments [349][350]. Alltan (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident has provided the necessary scholarship that mentions Xhufi's work as being: "aggressively nationalist". There is no BLP violation on providing this information. However, an RSN needs to filled in order to have a clear image on this but there is too much extremist speech on TV shows etc. and scholarship doesn't hesitate to reject his claims (Arbërit e Jonit has been also considered non-RS even inside Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A longtime Wikipedia user calling a living academic racist, extremist, nationalist, tendentious, ultranationalist etc. (see diffs above) and doing this multiple times over a protracted period of time even after being warned is in fact a severe BLP violation.

Xhufi's work has received excellent reviews in Albania and abroad. It's listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press source as of 2022[351] SilentResident can't pick a random quote from someone who has even written an article in the same anthology as Xhufi who hasn't been "rejected" anywhere. Falsely claiming that a living academic is promoting "extremist speech on TV shows" is in and of itself a BLP violation. You can't go around and call anything "extremist speech" without evidence or a source which calls such speech extremist. Admins need to know that in the previous RSN there was an attempt to distort a historical comment by Xhufi and make into the opposite of what it said [352]. There is a clear targeting of this author by several users who have to stop using wikipedia as public space to attack living authors Alltan (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Being cited in sporadic occasions doesn't make RS his work, in fact this means nothing about the author and his work in general. I have seen several nationalistic works that have been cited for various reasons in serious scholarship. Please don't mix up those two. SilentResident mentioned the conclusion of high quality scholarship about works on the topic Xhufi is specialized (Albanian history and Greek-Albanian relations) and definitely Xhufi's work should be treated with heavy precaution. [[353]] Himara has always been Albanian, Greek government launched a 200-year old Anti Albanian agenda and several other motos of this fashion can't meet RS.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC on Xhufi at RSN [354]. This thread should be about the alleged tag-teaming, and nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, please consider this a firm warning that you are at immiment risk of a long term block if you keep engaging in WP:BLP policy violations regarding Pëllumb Xhufi. If you do not stop attacking and besmirching this academic without filing a report at WP:RSN as you have been repeatedly been asked to do, then a block will be the inevitable result. The idiom is "put up or shut up". I truly hope that you understand, and will conduct yourself in accordance with policy going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I am heeling to your warning. And not just that, but also I am trying to understand the line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP to make sure that when describing an unreliable source for the nature of their unreliability (i.e. unreliable due to their extremist views), doesn't result into WP:BLP violations. For decades, I had the impression that sources can be subject to scrutiny and criticism in Wikipedia, provided that it is based on WP:RS. But apparently this isn't the case and this is what I am trying to understand. Understanding a policy's principle, helps a lot not just to avoid repeating the policy's violations in the future but also the approach to questionable sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, adding to my confusion expressed on my comment just above, regarding the precise line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP, another Admin just intervened at the RSN stating that editor Alltan is doing an inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP regarding the criticism against Xhufi. The RfC at RSN also has non-neutral wording, and is advisd to be closed and moved to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard instead,[355] an advise the filler stated that they will follow. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

User:SilentResident, it is inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP to say the criticism of Xhufi in academic books is a breach of WP:BLP. But calling him an extremist or things like that is indeed a violation of WP:BLP. In other words, you can quote academcs who criticize Xhufi, but you can't call him an extremist, far right politican (he does not belong to the far-right) etc. Xhufi for some edits can be unreliable, for others can be reliable. It is a bit hard I know, but what can else we do? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thank you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Not only is Khirurg accusing me of "tag teaming" (last time he accused me of "tag teaming" was in November 2021 and he was warned for that and then blocked) but he is using the inflammatory term "gang up". It is very insulting: I am a Wikipedia volunteer, not a street gang trying to bully people. Even worse, there have been cases where I have supported Khirurg's position againt editors I am supposely "tag teaming" with. For instance, Khirurg accuses me of "ganging up" with Çerçok, but just 6 days ago I supported Khirurg's position in a content dispute with Çerçok [356]. I can cite other such examples where I disagree with editors cited as part of the "tag team". I urge you to intervene to make sure Khirurg never makes such false accusations against me again. Btw, Khirurg noted that Ahmet Q asked editors to exchange emails; well Khirurg too has asked several editors to exchange emails. Even writing those requests for email exchange in Greek though here editors are supposed to write only in English. I frankly do not see any issue with asking someone to exchange emails, Idk if there is a policy against it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you deem it inflammatory, I've struck the term (it's unnecessary anyway). Now, can you try and address the topic of the report at hand? Btw, is this you calling a veteran editor an "edit-warrior" in an edit-summary [357]? Not only is this a clear WP:NPA violation, but also a violation of WP:SUMMARYNO, which explicitly states Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. Attacking editors in edit-summaries is especially bad because they cannot be edited. As a sign of good faith, would you be willing to ask the edit-summary be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warrior is someone who is edit warring. If I keep edit warring, I am an edit warrior. The editor breached the 3RR three times within a month. I reported him and he got warned by an admin. Then he kept reverting and placed a warning template that is used for disruptive IPs and newbies on my tp just because I reverted him twice. In the edit summary he claimed that I was not participating on the tp, but the history of the tp shows that is not true. Will you ask him to get his edit summary deleted? Anyways, some admins who use the term "edit warrior" in edit summaries for example [358] [359][360]. Even the WP:EW page uses the term "edit warrior". Do not expect any more responses by me here. I waited for the evidence of "tag teaming" but you just posted some random reverts of "Albanian accounts". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991, indeed there is no trace of you in the talkpage [[361]] although you kept reverting. By the way the result of your report was "user(s) warned" since your disruptive editing was noticed by uninvolved editors there. As such you owe a sincere apology for this pattern. Indeed you are reverting without talkpage participation in a wide variety of articles considered that you support editors that agree on your national agenda (another recent example of reverting sourced information [[362]] and no trace in tp [[363]], same situation in Pecë [[364]][[365]] and nothing in tp [[366]] apart from my comments).Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salviogiuliano, the admin who warned Alexikoua (for breaching 3RR thrice in a month) [367] made it absolutely clear you were the only user edit warring and the only one warned. [368]Yes, I only warned him, but the template automatically closes the report as "warned user(s)". As I said during the discussion, Alex was edit warring and Alex was warned. Ktrimi991 explained this to you already in a discussion [369]. So why are you, being aware that this is not true, still asserting this? Alltan (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The full report is found here [[370]] and no wonder an uninvolved editor noticed immediately Ktrimi's disruptive pattern. After the first comment by Coldtrack Ktrimi desperately responded to wp:ADMINSHOP tactics: [[371]] and [[372]].Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion

A thread was opened at RSN concerning whether Pellumb Xhufi should be considered a reliable source. An RFC was briefly started, but it was then stopped by User:Rosguill, who advised that the issue be taken to DRN for moderated discussion to focus the discussion better. I have created a subpage for the discussion, which will take place at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. If there is agreement that this is a dispute about the reliability of a source, which is a content dispute, then this thread can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a question: will anyone actually read this monster of a thread? Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

User:JulieMinkai - What monster of a thread? This thread in WP:ANI? This thread in WP:ANI is a specimen of a species of monsters, ANI threads that become monsters. That isn't required. The editors are being asked to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi, and I have started by asking them to state what the source reliability issue is. When I conduct mediation on an article content issue, I start over, rather than rehashing tens of page of article talk page discussion, and I am starting this reliability discussion over rather than rehashing the WP:ANI discussion. I am not asking that they read the monster thread. You do have a point, which is that I am not getting responses to my invitation to discussion. If the editors who are quarreling about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi just go away at this point, then the problem will have gone away. If the quarreling then breaks out somewhere else, an admin can tell them that they missed their chance at moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Couple of questions: What happens if one side of the dispute does not show up at the DRN, as appears as of this writing to be the case? The main issue of this thread is not Pellumb Xhufi, but the evidence I have presented that a group of users appears to be tag-teaming in edit-wars across Balkan articles. IT could be that ANI is not the right venue for this due to complexity, so what I would like to know is what would be a good venue for something like that? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Khirurg - The two admins whom I know have looked at this dispute are User:Rosguill, who asked to take the dispute to DRN, and User:Cullen328. Maybe one of them can provide guidance. In the meantime, I am waiting for any other editors to reply, and for the editors who have replied, including yourself, to answer my question. What can be done if only the critics of Xhufi show up is to better formulate the question of whether he is an unreliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am responding here because I have been pinged. I have no opinion one way or another about whether or not sources by Pellumb Xhufi should be considered reliable. I will point out that there is no requirement that reliable sources must be neutral and unbiased. We deal with the bias of sources by summarizing and citing the full range of reliable sources. So, if Pellumb Xhufi is part of reasonable academic discussion and debate on these matters, then his perspective should be included and summarized. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of other academic sources denounce and repudiate his academic work as spurious, then he should be treated as a fringe source. I am speaking in hypothetical terms because I lack the topic specific expertise and language skills to do that analysis myself. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Khirurg's question about tag-teaming in edit-wars across Balkan articles, that would be a case for WP:ANI or WP:AE since at that point we're talking about conduct, not content. In the absence of a clear consensus on Xhufi's usability, however, you would need some very strong evidence of clear-cut edit warring, canvassing, or other inappropriate forms of collusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I will respond to your question at the DRN within 24 hours. The issue of tag-teaming is largely separate from the issue of Xhufi though - it predates it and is much larger in scope. I've presented evidence of this behavior across twenty articles (and could find more if needed) in the "Evidence" section above. The problem with AE for this is that the 20 diff and 500 word limit. That's why I have brought it here at ANI. Khirurg (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The tag-teaming continues, evidence added here: [373]. Khirurg (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Khirurg and others - I am stating at the DRN subpage that there are a content issue, the reliability of the source, and a conduct issue. The discussion that I am trying to moderate is only about the content issue. However, I hope that discussion of the content issue will make it possible, if not to resolve the conduct issue, at least to defer its discussion so that the content issue can be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If the conduct issue persists or resumes after both this monster of a thread and discussion of the source reliability issue, ArbCom may have to be asked to conduct a fact-finding review of the conduct issue, which doesn't appear to be getting resolved by the community. So let's try facilitated discussion of the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The conduct issue is persisting as we speak [374] [375], literally. It has nothing do with the source reliability issue, it's much larger and widespread. Khirurg (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Club y Biblioteca Ramón Santamarina

For more than two hours, with no assistance at page protection and one user adopting dozens of IPs. This is an easy fix. So let's do it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The page has been protected for a week. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 05:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

IP adding bizarre spiels to articles

82.17.104.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding garbled conspiracy theory and bizarre opinions on articles such claiming Kanye West is Israeli agent despite warnings 2001:8003:34A3:800:5000:97DB:698D:13B1 (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That edit is from March 2021 and says that West employed ex-Israeli agents as bodyguards. The edit was poor and was reverted. The IP only has two edits this year, none recent. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit says they made a "hearts and minds" operation by "utilizing friends of Israel such as Kanye West", naming a living person as an agent for a political operation without any proof would at least violate BLP 2001:8003:34A3:800:A8F7:155F:5EA3:D1AF (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This is all bizarre, especially since Kanye West, who now goes by the two letter moniker "Ye", is being roundly criticized for comments perceived as anti-Semitic in recent days. See this. The fellow is prone to contradictory and bewildering statements, according to many reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Problems with move

Regarding Matt Simon (soccer), Matt Simon, Matt Simon (disambiguation). There seems to be some disagreement here about the Primary Topic. In addition to the original move, done with an edit summary of This is not a primary topic when multiple other article subjects exist with the same name, which is not a valid determination of PT, another editor objected by "correcting" the problem with a cut/paste move of the dab. I think everything should just be undone so a formal move discussion can happen. Getting back to the status quo is more complicated that just undoing one move. Matthew Simon and Matt Simon (footballer) may also be involved. Can someone straighten this out. I did one retarget to fix a double redirect before I fully realized what was going on. I don't believe this fits the scope of another noticeboard. MB 02:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I've got it sorted. Things are back to status quo, except Matt Simon where your double-redirect edit was made, is now a primary redirect and the article that was sitting on that title was moved to Matt Simon (footballer) then to Matt Simon (soccer). Seems to be some confusion over whether Aussies are footballers or soccer players. Of course we can move off the parenthetical if disambiguation is not necessary. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The approved qualifier for Australian association footballers is (soccer); see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer); not least because the preferred qualifier for Australian rules footballers is (footballer) per WP:PRECISE. If there's no ambiguity, a redirect from (footballer) to (soccer) is certainly in order. Narky Blert (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've done a RM to move Matt Simon (soccer) back to Matt Simon as an undiscussed controversial move. As is stands right now, Matt Simon (disambiguation) is a Malplaced DAB since there is no article at the basename. MB 05:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Constant word salad

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to put this, but there seems to be a load of vandals recently that are adding loads of random words to pages (see this abuse log for an example), causing loads of bytes to be added. What's going on here? RteeeeKed💬📖 22:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@RteeeeKed: Vandalbot or semi-automated vandalism. Was raised at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested a bit ago. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

TomJay 22

TomJay 22 (talk · contribs) - previously blocked for adding unsourced content to BLPs, but he is still at it. GiantSnowman 18:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've given the user DS alert for BLP here. --Stylez995 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 08:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring

2001:8003:9018:1700:90D6:E2ED:E32A:78D4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In Flames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Amorphis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP range has been being very disruptive to the point of edit warring/genre warring over two articles with two editors including myself reverting him. This has actually been going on for a long time since late August. The IP range should be blocked. FireCrystal 06:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Range: 2001:8003:9018:1700::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – 79 out of 128 edits (~2/3) on that range [376] have been revereted. – Archer1234 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• /64 blocked for two months. Resumed genre warring after coming off a one month block for the same. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Third edit-warring notice for User:Elspea756, requesting third-party insight regarding behavioural issues

For full disclosure, I personally am currently in a content dispute with User:Elspea756 on the Stable Diffusion article. Normally I wouldn't really care, and just continue on as per normal, but I've noticed on the user's talk page that this is the third time they have engaged in aggressive content warring on topics ralating to artificial intelligence, and that all of their past interactions with other editors, just like their current and ongoing interactions with mine, are particularly hostile in rhetoric.

I feel that the third time is probably the time when they should be more reflective on how they should conduct themselves in a collaborative environment with other editors. They are quick to become aggressive, and do not demonstrate willingness to listen to other editors. Their user talk page comments especially give off the tone of someone who is here to "win arguments" rather than to seek common ground. I'm not sure whether this user requires cooling off for a bit, or whether some guidance is required to address these long-running behavioural issues, but I feel like if I don't bring this up now, then this behaviour will continue indefinitely. Any thoughts? --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Drmies: in particular regarding an earlier dispute over artificial intelligence content in January, in case you have additional things to bring up. Cheers, --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, three times in over a year, editors have expressed that they are in a content dispute with me on my talk page. First, another user was making edits to promote false claims of a "world's first artificial intelligence art book" that was created several decades after earlier AI art books; I along with other editors removed these false promotional edits. On a second occasion, an editor was spamming their user-generated images into several articles; again myself and other editors removed these unnecessary self-promotional images. Now, on this third occasion, benlisquare has created an image that they describe as "I made the image literally 27 minutes ago ffs" and they have been spamming it into the Stable Diffusion article. At first I didn't realize it was their image, just that it was not supported by sources and does not illustrate what they claim it does, so I removed it as unsourced and inaccurate. I have earlier created a section on the article's talk page to discuss this and I have suggested alternative images. So far, benlisquare's response has been failure to compromise and escalating "my brother in Christ" profanity. Elspea756 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you should probably apologise to all of Christendom for your remark just then. Now, onto the main issue at hand - can you name any Wikipedia policy that backs up any of the claims you have made regarding what editors can and can't do, or are you merely making everything up on the spot? I've posted, on numerous occasions, specific Wikipedia policies on the talk page and in edit comments. I've yet to see you make any procedurally-based arguments. Your idea that users cannot upload files they create and use them to expand Wikipedia articles is completely nonsensical - I created and uploaded File:CDawgVA at SMASH 2022.jpg, does that mean I'm not allowed to use it on the CDawgVA article? I created and uploaded File:Kattā kanji.svg, does that mean I'm not allowed to use it at wikt:Appendix:Unicode/CJK Unified Ideographs Extension E/2C000? I created and uploaded File:ASCA at Crunchyroll Expo Australia 2022.jpg, does that mean I'm not allowed to use it at the Asca (singer) article? Your entire premise is completely flawed and inane, I don't even know how you came to such a conclusion.

As for your earlier disputes, I do not care who was in the right, and who was in the wrong. We're not talking about who is right. My concern is that your conduct is not compatible with that of a collaborative project like Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry if I wasn't clear. My comments above were directed towards other editors who may be reading this page, who may be trying to determine the accuracy of your claims. My comments were not intended as an invitation for you to continue your content dispute here. If you'd like to further discuss this content dispute, there is a section I created on the article's talk page. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't let this behaviour slide. It is perfectly okay to disagree with other editors, but there is a correct and an incorrect way to do so. Had you been more reasonable in your engagements with me, then we may have been able to resolve this issue without any of this hubbub from occurring at all. I strongly feel that you need to understand that approaching other editors in the manner that you have is completely unacceptable, as it does no good to yourself or to others, and simply results in unnecessary escalation. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You know, it would be much appreciated if I wasn't being wikihounded on Commons literally three days later. I'm starting to get really sick and tired of this obsession with me. And I'm not even touching upon all the borderline personal attacks being left in edit summaries. For the record, I have not edited the Stable Diffusion article since October 6, so this is crossing a line of what is a content dispute, and what is harrassment. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfounded reasoning and misuse of power for redirection of a page

I have spent countless hours creating page "McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences" using properly cited information and/or common knowledge. I write for a living. However, User @Onel5969 has redirected the page, twice, to the School's parent institution, the McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Onel5969's reasoning for redirecting the page is unfounded, claiming copyright violation when in fact all of my sources for information were correctly cited. This is a misuse of administrative power. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences is an entirely separate organization to that of its parent institution. The School has enough significant history, activity, and information to deem a unique Wikipedia page necessary. Furthermore, McGill University, Montreal, has many other schools and departments listed on Wikipedia that have not been redirected to their parent institutions, some even with more blatant copyright violations. Your help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhandgregory (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. It's better to discuss such things on the article talk page(s). CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The administrator in question is being unreasonable. Therefore, using the article's talk page is useless. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The article cites McGill twice, and no other sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If I was given more time, I would have ADDED more sources. However, I woke up to the page no longer existant. Therefore, I could no longer work on adding more external sources. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's advisable that you draft the article first, or create it in your sandbox. That way you can insert all of the sources you need to avoid situations like this. — Czello 16:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, that reasoning is completely absurd because the organization would know the most about their own history. Therefore, the information is of a primary source. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to change core policies just because you find them 'absurd'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Justinhandgregory, are you compensated in any way for your work on this article? EEng 16:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  And see WP:BRANCH. Normally, information about units of an organization should be described in the organization’s page. And pointing to other units that have their own pages is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. The unit has enough significant history for a unique Wikipedia page to be valid. One of the department's of the School discovered the cancer biomarker. Additionally, many other universities have separate pages for their constituent units. See > Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, etc. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  You haven't cited any of that. The way we know that history is significant is that sources independent of the organization think it is important enough to write about. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I could gladly provide a plethora of sources independent of the organization. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  No. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Justinhandgregory, your accusation here of "misuse of power" is off base. @Onel5969 is not an administrator, they are a regular editor here. And as far as I can see they have redirected your article only once, and explained their perfectly valid reasoning in an edit summary. What you should do is (1) create this as a draft, not a full article, so that you have time to add the necessary external Reliable Sources and otherwise make it worthy of article status, (striking this suggestion; you should not be writing the article at all) and (2) answer this question: since you say you write for a living, are you being paid to write this article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Upldate: I see from this that you are an employee of the university. In that case you have an conflict of interest and should not be writing this article at all. Please see WP:COI and WP:PE. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: Now I see why you say it was redirected twice by Onel5969. You created this article twice under different names: once as McGill School of Biomedical Sciences and once as McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences. One of them was full of copyright violations, which had to be removed and hidden from view per Wikipedia's legal requirements, and both contained only primary souces. Both are now redirects to McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not being paid to write this article. The COI page, that you referred me to, says that COI is "strongly discouraged" but, it does not say that it is against policy. I have attempted to write this article twice and it was redirected twice. The article serves purely as a piece for public information with common knowledge. It was not written in a biased tone, nor was it written as an advertisement. I have written a few Wikipedia pages and this has never occurred before. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs here. If you're being paid to market the university in general, that means you're a paid editor in this circumstance, even if you don't have an employment contract that specifically says 'make Wikipedia edits'. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

TAV College and Abraham Boyarsky are also the product of undisclosed paid editing, I have tagged them as such. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the point in Wikipedia if writers who publish factual information are being penalized for their contributions? Regardless of affiliation, if the content is written in a purely objectively, what is the problem? Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that editors with a conflict of interest are usually incapable of judging their own work. Also, you have been violating Wikipedia's terms of service. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. However, I disagree. You consistently use speculation in your sentences and reasonings. Additionally, the notice you added says that "it may require cleanup" not does. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It clearly does, it reads like an advertisement. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And you're just about the last person who should be removing these maintenance templates MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

By way of an extra opinion, the TAV page does need cleanup. I was looking at it to see if I could help and saw that it needs a lot of work and if I tagged it with the issues at the top I could be accused of tagbombing. It has issues with NPOV (specifically advertising), use of primary sources, needing additional references for support, MOS issues and more. Gusfriend (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not being paid to "market the university in general." I am acting as a member of the general public, writing this page on my own volition due to the School's significant contributions to society and to medicine. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

But you are employed by them, correct? And it is for some form of communications or marketing? MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• '...properly cited information and/or common knowledge': Justinhandgregory you may be a writer, many of us here on Wikipedia are, but that does not provide us with a free pass to ignore Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTABILITY. Primary sources may corroborate some of the content, but notability is a totally different concept. Stuartyeates also tagged the article, and I would have done so too had I seen it first. Despite being sourced, one paragraph is distinctly promotional and conflicts with WP:NPOV, a policy which is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Your article is not lost, it's all there in the redirect's history, but it will not reach mainspace until notability is asserted. You might find this explanation about universities and their constituent units helpful. Wikipedia is extraodinarily open to submissions of new articles by anyone, but the onus is on the article creators to follow the rules even if Wikipedia does not make them sufficiently explicit to newcomers, but that is the fault of the organisation that owns the encyclopedia, not of us, its volunteer editors and quality controllers. We are nevertheless here to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am an advocate for notability and citation when it comes to writing. However, the policies, volunteer editors, and quality controllers make it nearly impossible to contribute to Wikipedia due to the sheer amount of rules and lack of information of can and cannot. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sadly, a significant proportion of the rules are there solely because contributors tend to be poor judges of 'objectivity' when it comes to their own edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I beg to differ, Justinhandgregory I have written over 100 long, perfectly notable and sourced articles, and correctly formatted - right from joining Wikipedia. Other editors have written thousands of articles - why would you find it so particularly 'impossible'? If an encyclopedia is to be regarded as a reliable collection of information, it has to have rules - it's not a magazine article, a text for a promotional website, a publicity blurb, or a newspaper opinion column; it naturally follows that it needs rules. It even has a comprehensive Manual of Style. But as I said, we're here to help - and we do. See Your first article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Justinhandgregory: I'd like to point out that what you are doing in this discussion is WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Bludgeoning. Neither helps your cause, and in fact harm it. You need to take a step back, calm yourself, and listen to what you're being told, which is totally correct and would be helpful to you if you plan on sticking around and contributing here. You may well be a professional writer, but at this time you are not a veteran Wikipedia editor, and the people who are responding to you are. Rather than fighting them, you really should be taking their advice to heart and trying to understand that writing for Wikipedia has specific rules and policies which must be followed, which you are not. Instead you are fighting them, which amounts to tilting at windmills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm rather late to this issue due to timezone issues. I was the editor who first found tagged that article while I was on new page patrol (shepherding new articles and new editors). I 100% support User:Onel5969's edits that followed mine. @Justinhandgregory: if you honestly believe that there are independent secondary sources covering the School of Biomedical Sciences in depth I would invite you to create an article at Draft:McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences; in the Draft: namespace there is considerable leeway and you can submit your article for feedback on issues of style, content and sourcing. I work in AfC too (moving articles from Draft to article namespace) and you're welcome to ping me for feedback. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I note that the OP has been partially blocked from Article space, and the apparently CU data is involved, per the block notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not CU data, just off-wiki information that was emailed to the paid editing queue. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, thanks for the correction, and the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly the state of sourcing at Draft:TAV College makes this an open-and-shut case of COI, which is particularly galling in light of Justinhandgregory's disavowals of the same. I support a block without even needing to look at the off-wiki evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Disney XD template mess

• Template:Disney XD original series
• Template:Disney XD originals
• Template:Disney XD
• Template:Disney XD P

A huge mess has occurred due to MegaSmike46's careless string of page moves of whatever the original title of this template was, I honestly can't tell anymore, and their constant requests for speedy deletion by {{db-g7}} of the resulting redirects, which does not apply. As a result, the templates linked above all have had their histories split and fragmented in a complex manner. EvergreenFir then proceeded to delete Template:Disney XD originals as uncontroversial maintenance despite the page having over 1,000 revisions, in violation of legal requirement of the page's history (I have since restored it). Template:Disney XD P also has some history, but I couldn't tell you where it came from. I can't look at or take care of at the moment, so I'm bringing this here. ✗plicit 04:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My description of what happened:

1. As a predecessor to the main mess, what was then called Template:Disney XD original series and what was then called Template:Former Disney XD original series were merged per a TfD in May 2022. This merge was fraught with some drama. In the end, Template:Former Disney XD original series was the survivor template.
2. This was cut-and-paste moved by MegaSmike86 to Template:Disney XD original series in June 2022.
3. In October 2022, MegaSmike46 cut-and-paste moves Template:Disney XD original series to Template:Disney XD.
4. Amaury reverts this cut-and-paste move.
5. MegaSmike86 uses the page-move feature to move the template to Template:Disney XD originals
6. MegaSmike86 uses the page move feature to move Template:Disney XD (which was then a redirect) to Template:Disney XD P
7. MegaSmike86 cut-and-paste moves Template:Disney XD originals to Template:Disney XD P
8. BrickMaster02 cut-and-paste moves Template:Disney XD P back to Template:Disney XD original series.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is that I warned MegaSmike46 24 hours ago that he was causing a big mess by tagging transcluded templates for CSD and yet he continued to mess around with these templates, redirects and deletion tagging. Template deletion should occur via WP:TFD not CSD. It's okay to make a mistake, even a big mistake, but when someone tells you your behavior is causing problems, you need to stop what you are doing and understand why your actions are causing problems. This didn't happen. I'm sure that every admin who was patrolling CSD categories last night wondered why two dozen Disney articles were suddenly tagged for speedy deletion. I can't even begin to comprehend what to do with these cut & paste jobs and page moves. Template space, especially templates being used in articles, is not a place for experimentation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And I just found that they placed a PROD tag on Template:Disney XD! I'm beginning to wonder about competency if they think templates can be PROD'd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Template space, especially templates being used in articles, is not a place for experimentation - agreed; more generally make sure one knows what one is doing before doing anything, especially things that are difficult to undo. I've cleaned up worse messes on other wikis where I'm an admin, but they usually occurred by accident rather than from someone deliberately fooling around. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There are also issues with {{Boomerang}}, which seems to have been swapped with... {{Cartoon Network}}? Don't know. They haven't edited since this thread was started, but if they edit it again I'm going to drop a p-block on them. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac There's also a cut and paste move at {{20th Century Animation}} and {{20th Century Fox Animation}} that needs fixing. {{Otter Media}} seems to have started out as a template for a different company - it started out as "Warner Bros. Consumer Products"? {{Warner Bros. Discovery International}} started out as "Template:Warner Bros. Themed Entertainment" about theme parks, but was overwritten with a template about television stations and moved? 192.76.8.81 (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Bugger. Thanks for that. If there are any others, pop them on the WP:REPAIR list for this case. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Boomerang, 20th Century, Otter, and WB sorted. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, all of the Disney templates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Explicit for fixing my error in deleting the history. That is something i need to learn more about. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the histories and try to sort everything out, histmerge-wise. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that multiple editors have had issues with MegaSmike86, going back some time (just look at their Talk page!) – i.e. before the most recent template mess. There is even a current thread on my Talk page about this editor. It does seem likely that this may be a WP:CIR issue, and it's possible that a (temporary?) narrow topic or editing ban on some subjects (e.g. animation and/or childrens TV and its television networks?) might be in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Update and proposals

 Administrator note I have restored everything back to its original locations; there don't appear to be any significant edits made other than the moves themselves (just bickering and template-name updates) so there's no content or attribution lost. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this today while giving him anotther warning for adding unnecessary spaces to FX Movie Channel, I have also noticed questionable edits and not even sure how to deal with him. He has been doing this to several templates and articles over the past few weeks from what I have noticed. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Primefac, and anyone else who helped, thanks for sorting out this mess. I am not familiar with Template space and thought if I tried to undo their edits, I'd likely cause more damage. Thanks for spending your time sorting this all out. Maybe a partial, limited time block from Template space? They don't seem responsive when editors bring up problems their edits and page moves have caused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a pblock from the Template space is the minimum we should be doing here. They made 20 edits last night, more than half of which have already been reverted, so I could even see a DE or CIR block as a possibility. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Their non-template edits mainly look to be, at best, pointless messing around, and in many cases are just as disruptive as their template edits. Things like cosmetic edits bypassing template redirects [377] [378] [379] adding articles to duplicate categories (in this case adding them to a parent category when they are already in a subcategory) [380] [381] [382] adding articles to incorrect categories [383] and moving articles from proper subcategories to a diffusing parent category [384] [385] [386] are all either unproductive wastes of time or are just making work for other editors. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I recently made a revert {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Disney_XD&curid=25065465&diff=1114841438&oldid=1114783285], where she removed well sourced sections and appears to have adding shows randomly without leaving sources to these additions. A few days I did report here [387], but wanted to me to go here. I just left it, since this was still an ongoing issue. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sensing a block will be needed sometime soon here. Has continued with similar edits despite this discussion currently taking place- doesn't seem like much will be changing anytime soon despite a multitude of warnings prior to this discussion, as well as multiple warnings during this discussion, with them also staying entirely silent here. Magitroopa (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have indefed them -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

More block evasion by Verone66 using Texas IPs

• 2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The same children's TV topics of interest to User:Verone66 have been targeted by multiple Texas IPs, most recently Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:0/64. They have been edit-warring to restore preferred text.[388][389][390]

This person has been at it a long time. Five years ago they were using the Texas IP Special:Contributions/107.77.169.7 which was blocked multiple times. The Verone66 username is from four years ago. Three years ago, the Texas IP range Special:Contributions/2601:2C5:280:5680:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked because of Verone66. In 2021, they were blocked as Special:Contributions/50.249.76.130 and Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260:BD40:0:0:0:0/64, and they used the IP Special:Contributions/2600:387:F:B35:0:0:0:1 earlier this year, now part of a larger blocked range. In March 2022 they jumped on the range Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B81:1110:0:0:0:0/64. Sometimes their disruption comes from nearby Oklahoma: Special:Contributions/167.160.226.206 and Special:Contributions/69.12.115.54.

Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Anne Ogborn

Hi! This is my first time reporting something here, not sure if it's noteworthy. On September 26th, the user Justajanitor started editing on Wikipedia, and the only thing they did was heavily complaining about the Anne Ogborn article on its talk page. It feels like something weird is going on here, because the subject is a transgender activist. I want to emphasise that I don't have a COI, as I already did on the talk page. They said to me "It seems rushed that you come in here out of nowhere", while it seems they did that themselves. I just happen to browse Wikipedia and have over 5k edits all over the place. Thanks for looking into it in advance. In case I am wrong somewhere, let me know as well. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

They've made a few edits directly to the article, most of their edits have been on its talk page to point out sourcing problems that they perceive. I don't see anything wrong with their edits. (Please note that you are required to notify an editor on their talk page when you open an issue about them here, and you have not notified Justajanitor. Please do so.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Thanks for your reply, I'll do that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Lamaindor and User:Pimpwiki Multiple accounts same user

• Lamaindor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Your concise reason (Vandalised past 4th warning). Multiple accounts but same UserAutemps (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, you are saying User:Lamaindor and User:Pimpwiki are the same user, presumably because one created the Draft:Juno7 and the other submitted it for review. The page was deleted as 'unambiguous advertising or promotion' (it read like a press release). Is there anything else? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• The IP adresses and users: 190.80.164.166, 190.167.207.91, 190.80.164.110, User:Lamaindor and User:Pimpwiki all belong to a single user named Massenat James Emmanuel who systematically creates spam on all wikis. He himself wrote an article on his blog, see the link: https://topmagworld.com/et-si-on-parlait-de-juno7/ . User abusively using multiple accounts. Please check this before it’s too late and even worse. -- Autemps (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tiredhistory

• Tiredhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been repeatedly warned by another editor about their unsourced changes to the article Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad, changing the subject's nationality from Egyptian to Kurdish, in direct contradiction of the reliable sources cited. Most recent example [391], with the misleading edit summary "fixed typo". Their only other edits are similar unsourced changes to nationality at these two articles: [392] and [393]. Storchy (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I am unfamiliar with the topic or the discussion, but a quick Google search of this fellow's name + "Kurdish" brings up several hits, some old enough to make sure they're not Wikipedia copycats or Wiki-based sources. Of course, I have no idea how reputable these can be, and in any case there are probably better sources in Arabic or Kurdish. But I think what lies at the core of this dispute is the interpretation of the term "nationality", which we must usually associate with citizenship or allegiance to a country, but that in some languages or places is more likely to be associated with ethnicity (in Russian the term национальность [natsionalnost] is mostly used to denote your belonging to one of the ethnic groups of the Russian Federation/USSR). The fact that he apparently isn't removing Egyptian as much as adding Kurdish seems to point in this direction. I can't be sure of this of course, but it could all be in good faith and if his Kurdish ancestry can be confirmed (and there's no language barrier between the users) I think this could be solved quite easily and integrated into the article. Ostalgia (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Adam Levine Alleged Affairs

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.

---

Andy the Grump keeps on edit warring and undoing the changes of editors who have included the alleged Adam Levine's affairs, reported widely by verifiable sources. May you please take action against this user and ban him, because the editorial consensus is that the information is worth reporting in the articles and his reversing of people's edits is causing issues Kala7992 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate move reversal

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 RM of Belarusian ruble was closed and moved [394], TheCurrencyGuy reversed the move to their preferred spelling [395] saying:Page move request was made out of spite and not genuine concern for content. [396]. This doesn't seem like an appropriate way to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Sorry in advance if this isn't the right forum for this sorta thing—blindlynx 14:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved the article back and left some reasoning at the talk page of the user. Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to seriously look at this user's overall conduct? It doesn't seem drastically different than prior noticeboard discussions and blocks. Star Mississippi 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I only looked at this incident, but of course any uninvolved administrator is welcome to have a broader look. Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The move requester, @Bayonet-lightbulb, has since admitted that it was a knee-jerk reaction and that they now agree with the "rubel" spelling, thus meaning the RM is now without support. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not, and in any case, it is not up to you to decide. Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The only appropriate ways to challenge a good-faith closure of a requested move are (1) civilly discussing the issue with the closer and asking them to self-revert and (2) following a discussion with a closer, opening a discussion at move review. It is not appropriate to summarily revert a close of a requested move simply because one disagrees with the closer, particularly so in a DS area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The move requester has since admitted they were in the wrong. They moved the article after very little actual discussion was made. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There were other participants in the discussion besides you and the move requester. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN User:TheCurrencyGuy from currency

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

This is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7th time we are discussing this 3-month-old WP:SPA's currency-related disruption at a noticeboard (3 of those threads were started by TCG). A WP:TBAN from currency, broadly construed, seems necessary to prevent any further disruption. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • This is at least the eighth time, because Levivich is not listing a dispute at DRN, which I had to fail because TCG was commenting on the other editor rather than on article content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_221#Egyptian_pound Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support and if that turns into a site ban due to him being an SPA, that is no net loss. Star Mississippi 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It is demonstrably provable that I am not an SPA. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support After looking into the history behind the original page move, and recalling some of the prior threads on this noticeboard, it appears that TheCurrencyGuy is chronically unable to collaborate in a positive manner. It doesn't matter whether TheCurrencyGuy is correct or not in this particular conflict. The problem is that TheCUrrencyGuy's actions caused this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely what matters is the resulting content. If content is incorrect or misleading it ought to be corrected, I have tried to improve coverage, that is all I am guilty of. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Preventing disruption is more important than being correct, see WP:WRONGVERSION that codified that idea. Masem (t) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - among other things, they just now claimed that the move requester moved the article. Once they've edited other topics enough to prove they know how things actually work here, we can look into letting them back into the topic. As it is, I'm not sure an outright block isn't called for, but we can try this first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  But it is true, I contacted them on their talk page and they admitted the entire affair was a knee-jerk reaction. User talk:Bayonet-lightbulb TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Respectfully, replying here to every comment is not going to be to your advantage. Defend yourself in one statement, but please, try to take on what people are saying. You are not currently headed in a good direction. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support In my 13+ years of editing, I do not remember any disputes about traditional currencies. (Cryptocurrencies, yes.) In the four months since TheCurrencyGuy began editing, these disputes have proliferated. This editor has absolutely bludgeoned Pound sterling and Egyptian pound. They have edit warred, and despite their denials, they are an SPA. I have concluded that this topic ban is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have partially blocked TCG from this page for a week for bludgeoning of this discussion despite much helpful guidance not to.He has access to his talk and other areas of the project. Should any admin feel this is no longer necessary, feel free to modify the block

Star Mississippi 23:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Qdrx82 is clearly a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, Special:Diff/1114136852 in particular seems to be an admission that TheCurrencyGuy is controlling both accounts and briefly forgot who they had logged in as. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted there, we need to determine whether this is socking, or a Joe-job - and I'd have to suggest that the latter seems very likely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I almost hope it's a joe-job as as unfair as it is to prevent me from defending myself. would be an exceptional lack of Clue. Star Mississippi 01:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with that account whatsoever. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The SPI has now been closed - 'unrelated'. So almost certainly a Joe-job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's the matter of User:MoonlightHowling666, who certainly is a non-joe-job sock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment I had issues (wholly mine) with this pblock and am about to log off for a few days. Explicit permission for any admin to fix this in addition to adjusting it if a different consensus evolves. Star Mississippi 03:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support in the hope that they don't talk themselves into an indef ban. Gusfriend (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment All of the prior incidents have been resolved and where I was in the wrong I admitted my mistake. I am a relatively new editor and I am learning all the time. I would however reject the claim I am an SPA. I have a diverse range of interests, but I prefer to focus on one topic at a time rather than being eclectic because it allows me to focus. My temporary block a while back was due to an edit war with a user intent on retaining misleading information in an article. Some of the past incident notices were, I admit, my fault, but others, the majority of the initial ones, were a result of the poor behaviour of a now-banned user.

This latest incident arose because I filed a move request @ Polish złoty on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME viz. WP:RELIABLESOURCES. User:Bayonet-lightbulb had a kneejerk response and filed a competing request against Belarusian rubel. I do not believe sufficient grounds were reached to move that article as only a single source was ever cited by supporters of the move and no actual discussion followed despite my attempts to engage.

I absolutely reject Cullen328's claim that I "bludgeoned" those two articles. All I sought to do was bring them into line with fact. In the case of Egyptian pound I was fighting a battle to keep factually incorrect/misleading information out of the article. In the case of that article one user had been perpetually reverting any edits of a demonstrably incorrect notation for 16 years, if THAT is not bludgeoning I do not know what is. I sought to resolve the issue through engagement on the talk page. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You are just displaying more of your battlefield mentality. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are quite happy to allow inaccurate information to proliferate? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I want any problems with inaccuracies to be corrected by editors who do not behave disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You admitted as much. Christ almighty. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am a Jew. Please keep your religious figures out of this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in what religion you do or do not practice.

While Wikipedia is a secular space, one is not prohibited from using common expressions that reference Christianity. Otherwise common phrases like “Hail Mary” “fight the good fight” or “A wolf in sheep's clothing” would not be permitted. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"I have no interest in what religion you do or do not practice" would also not be permitted. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy I am simply asking that you refrain from referencing your Christian deity in debates with editors with a multiplicity of religious backgrounds. Do you really consider that unreasonable? Mohammed and Buddha and Confucius and Ahura Mazda and the countless Hindu deities should also not be trotted forth to support an argument on a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. TheCurrencyGuy seems incapable of understanding that believing they are in the right isn't an acceptable justification for this sort of behaviour. Not when it comes up here time and again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, to be honest. I don't see anything but a continuing time sink going on here. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately this very thread have shown that this is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately, having looked at the other six disputes listed by Levivich. I concur with Cullen328 that TheCurrencyGuy bludgeoned the Egyptian pound dispute. When an editor both is the initiator of multiple disputes and is reported in multiple disputes, it is evidence that the editor is combative. I thought that I had gotten the two editors in the Egyptian pound dispute to mostly agree when TheCurrencyGuy provided a long complaint about the other editor. I don't see any other way out. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  What was I supposed to do in that instance? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • When a moderator says "Comment on content, not contributors", because the purpose of the discussion is to improve the article, answer the questions about article content. When you have been asked not to discuss other editors by name, do not discuss other editors by name. The issue wasn't Matthew S, but the Egyptian pound. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Wow. Does not play well with others. A time out is definitely needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just reminded that this is the editor who believes You're just shifting me back toward my belief that there needs to be a different general wiki with no American English in it. This is either a topic ban, or a site ban as with that belief I'm not sure he's going to be collaborative elsewhere Star Mississippi 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would have no objection to a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looking over the previous threads (and TCG's comments in this thread), a topic ban is clearly needed. Wouldn't necessarily oppose a flat-out site ban either, but let's try a topic ban first and see if TCG can collaborate constructively elsewhere. SkyWarrior 02:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a site-ban, because a topic-ban hasn't yet been tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support TCG cannot continue their WP:IDHT and unrepentant currency-related hostilities any longer. The last straw is that unilateral non-admin reversion of a discussion outcome; ArbCom has just this year heftily t-banned somebody who tried the exact same anti-consensus tactic. A topic ban from currencies to me though is a bare minimum, to at least soothe the area most inflamed by TCG's conduct. Given how utterly against the basic principle of consensus TCG seems to be, I'd prefer a harsher sanction to get at the root of TCG's problems, but I can't come up with any better ideas yet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. I don't know if non-Admins can contribute here, so feel free to revert if not. As may be seen from their talk page, I have crossed pens with TCG many times in the past few months and done a lot of informal mentoring. At this stage, I don't think the "I'm new here" story washes any more. My more fundamental concern with a T-ban is that this editor has contributed a lot of new RSs and in so doing has significantly improved many currency articles. The problem with their editing is arrogance: they are convinced that they are right and any other perspectives are just wrong, urban myths, sloppy writing, "as everybody knows" or whatever (and they aren't always wrong in that assessment). So the problem is that they don't seem to have any negotiation skills or ability to recognise that when a different view is presented, it is done in equal good faith. So if is possible I would support a t-ban in main space but oppose a t-ban in article talk pages. I don't know if they will actually want to contribute any more if t-banned but contributions at talk pages that propose and justify requests that an edit be made might just work. If the only option available is negotiation, then maybe negotiation skills will be learned. (I'm not sure if a site ban has actually been proposed but if it has, I would definitely oppose it as premature and unjustified by any events.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Non admin (such as yourself and I) are always welcome to comment and contribute here. It is the same as being involved with AfD, RfC and the other back end elements of Wikipedia which rely on consensus. In fact, given the sanctions and issues, the more people helping determine consensus here the better.

  I like your thinking about talk pages.Gusfriend (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have also engaged with TCG on a few of these issues (to a lesser extent than JMF). TCG's interest in consistency of notation for obscure currencies is a natural target for conflict, in that sources (for the notation to use in English) are limited, and the changes he wants to make span many pages. I find that his viewpoint is more often than not more compelling than the opposition, and it is true that the way currencies are presented on many articles is a bit of a mess, so I am hesitant to support telling him to leave the area entirely. But he needs more patience for letting discussions play out, and for respecting consensus rather than his perception of truth as the ultimate determiner of what goes into the articles. So I agree JMF that requiring TCG to stick to talk pages in the currency topic space for a while would likely be helpful in helping him build these skills. I do believe he has a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, but I also tend to agree that he has been consuming quite a bit of editor time and this is a real concern. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Update TCG has admitted to operating an alternate account, User:MoonlightHowling666. However, it has not edited currency-related articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - To be clear, I support a full topic ban, including talk pages. The amount of issues caused by an account less than four months old is highly disproportional to the constructive edits made in that same small window of time. Given the confirmed sockpuppetry, the issues of interaction with others, and this unwarranted railing against American English, I would fully expect that a topic ban won't go far enough in solving the issues here, but it's a step in the right direction and a block should be a last resort. I support a topic ban; maybe I'm proven wrong and a topic ban will put the issue to rest. - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Some time ago I became aware of this editor and not in good terms. There is clearly a misunderstanding around the difference between "accuracy" and "pedantry" and with this being yet another discussion around the same behaviour, a topic ban would be the best course of action. doktorb _words^deeds 02:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is overdue considering the number of editing disputes involving TheCurrencyGuy, and considering his acrimonious conduct. (Note: I !voted in the dumpster fire that was TCG's move request for Banknotes of the pound sterling.) 68.43.231.28 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

77.234.70.47

Please check on user 77.234.70.47 at the page of Kevin Magnussen he called me You transphobic cunt! You're worse than Hitler! After I undo some unsourced edits.Lobo151 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, reverted and edit summary revdeled. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and action taken!Lobo151 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem, that kind of comment will get squashed instantly no ifs or buts. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious editing

Arskelrod (talk · contribs)

Arskelrod just created an account today. Their first edit was to (mostly) copy User:HangingCurve's User page, complete with a barnstar, Rollback rights template, and the claim to have been editing since 2018 with more than 13,000 edits. This seems like a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny by appearing as a more experienced editor. Does this ring any bells, perhaps an LTA? Woodroar (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody I know with whom I've crossed swords. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the userpage. Others may wish to consider this edit, 38 minutes after registering. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I do recall seeing a user that got scammed by someone who had just copied someone else's userpage to make them look more credible. THere's a possibility it's the same person (or company) but it could just be coincidence. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

For Clarity. -- Mike 🗩 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Iaof2017

Iaof2017 (talk · contribs) is creating edits that are against the policy. I reverted some of this user edits and he reported me, but I think his edits are absolutely unsubstantiated and make the page even worse. FOr example Bebe Rexha and Rita Ora's discography pages. This user is adding "useless" source to all song which have their own linked pages with very reliable sources, next thing is adding more then allowed number of selected countries , changing selected countries without any reasons. Another thing at Rita's featured artist list...down from 10 countries to 7, again, without any legitimate reason etc...I saw many users were complaining about this users behaviour and edits but he keeps ignoring it and reporting the rest of us. Thank you. Jakubik.v (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide us with Wp:DIFFS of these edits, and point out which policies they are violating. You are the one reporting the other editor, we're volunteers and don't have time to do your homework for you. Additionally as per the notice when you edit this page, you need to notify the editor in question of this conversation. I have done so for you but please follow the instructions to save other people work. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Totally needless, there's an ongoing discussion related to his disruptive behaviour [397]. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Long-term subtle vandalism from Brooklyn IP at US House race articles

67.83.135.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A user has been making subtle changes to the 2022 US House race articles, mostly in New York, since July. To illustrate why thus is a chronic issue, here are the 5 most recent edits to the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections:

• [398] (changed a prediction for TX-28, which failed verification)
• [399] (changed a prediction for IL-17, which failed verification)
• [400] (changed a stat for NY-8 which already failed verification, without providing a new source)
• [401] (for the Democratic candidate in NY-21, listed their affiliation as "Moderate Party")
• [402] (undid another user who had just corrected a prediction for NY-19)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:67.83.135.146#Block. El_C 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject ratings changer IP vandal

There is a certain IP vandal that is changing importance ratings of numerous Indian history related articles which goes contrary to the set guidelines. I reported this at AIV yesterday but the report went stale and bot removed it. Copied from there:

• 2405:201:800B:684F:4186:DD72:ADCD:8690 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Changing WikiProject importance ratings at India-related articles against project guidance. Possible sock of Special:Contribs/2405:201:800B:6C09:7C64:885E:DCCA:BAFF (blocked per CIR). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, the vandal knows a lot more than WikiProject ratings, the kind of which I don't usually expect from IPs. Some excerpts from edit summary of the /64 range, possibly to mislead talk page watchers: "WP template fixes using AWB", "Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfD"; but IPs can't use AWB, and there has been no such TfD. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't pursue it then because I though it stopped but today Talk:Khudiram Bose popped up again on my watchlist, with the edit summary "reply" but in reality it is a rating change. When fighting against it at Talk:Mamata Banerjee (that eventually led to its semi-protection), I was told that this is a LTA by @User:Venkat TL at my talk page. What should be the next steps here? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's block evasion by Special:Contributions/2405:201:800B:6C09:0:0:0:0/65. I'll figure out a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom Thank you for raising this again. Three months ago I had raised this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Long term IP Vandalism with AWB in Edit Summary @Praxidicae linked an SPI but no solution was suggested. couple of days back this IP was edit warring on talk pages. Reporting on AIV is futile, admins dont block at AIV saying insufficient warning. Talk pages dont get protected so RFPP is futile. The only option left for me is to keep reverting when you see. @NinjaRobotPirate what do you suggest we should do. I am sick of this vandal. Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how that's vandalism. But it is block evasion. The earliest edits I've see on this IP range seem to be on a /52, so I'll soft block that for a month. I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, but I don't think I ever looked into it any further than I have now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone making a rating change once or twice may be acting in good faith. They may not know about the assessment criteria, but when someone does this tens of time on every talk page, even when they've been given enough reasons, I think they're actively trying to disrupt the project. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom @NinjaRobotPirate I am not giving diffs as they are hard to search from IP users but this guy is certainly a covert vandal with misleading edit summaries. I have seen him making blatant vandalism under the guise of harmless edit summaries like clean up using AWB. Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these are not good faith changes when the edit summaries are actively deceptive. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption by Locke Cole

Editor Locke Cole is edit warring against consensus on multiple templates Template:Bit and byte prefixes Template:Quantities of bits Template:Quantities of bytes (including a possible 3RR violation [403] [404] [405]), disrupting talk pages (here’s one example [406]) and carrying out personal attacks [407] [408]. Some editors are trying to hold a discussion at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits, but the discussion is continually disrupted by Locke Cole's edits. Can someone take a look? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: You have failed to notify Locke Cole of this ANI filing, as the red notice on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300 He did notify Locke here, but was reverted here. ~~~~ ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to apologise, in that case. I was going to check shortly after I made the comment and notice, but forgot to. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on the possible edit warring and general discussions I find it odd that the discussion for Template:Quantities of bytes is being held at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#New_proposal:_Legacy as part of a proposal that appears to have gained consensus and been implemented in November 2021. The only reason that I was able to figure out to go there was the fact that there was a November 2021 message on the Quantities of bytes template Talk with a link. The same goes for Template_talk:Quantities_of_bytes (where the previous talk items date to 2015). This discussion appears to have been going on for multiple years in different forms both on individual pages and collectively. I also note that the templates link to Kilobyte and other pages where the nomenclature should align with what is in the templates otherwise it is going to get even messier and the discussion will migrate there or the Template discussion will be used to support viewpoints elsewhere.

With all of this I suggest that a formal proposal be started at the Wikipedia:Village pump with messages left on the template talk pages alerting people and whilst the discussion is being undertaken the templates should be left in a stable form. Apart from anything else:

1. That will gain a wider viewership and input than on a single page.
2. Changes based on consensus at the Village Pump are easier to support and require an equivalent level of consensus to change to something else.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this should have been held at WT:MOSNUM, as one of the templates under discussion (Template:Bit and byte prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is transcluded at WP:COMPUNITS (part of WP:MOSNUM; thus making it a MOS change, not simply a template change). As to the November 2021 "consensus", the TL;dr version is, Dondervogel 2 drags out discussions, waits a month or longer to reply, apparently in an attempt to force their POV. It worked this time because I and other editors who would oppose it did not notice the "new" discussion (you can see I was heavily involved in other discussions in that main section; the proposal they made nearly two months after the last meaningful discussion in that sub-thread was quickly closed in only six days when they got what they wanted (with no attempt to ping or reach out to other editors they knew were heavily invested in the discussion)).

It is my intention to collect evidence of this disruptive behavior by Dondervogel 2 (back to when they edited as Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which goes back literally over a decade, present it here, and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG wherein Dondervogel is restricted from editing pages in any namespace that have any relation with units of measure that involve computers or technology. If you want just one taste of how they treat this topic as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, look at the full edit history of User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which they have religiously updated for fourteen years. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)If I'm reading correctly, a header at WT:MOSNUM indicates that this is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, so any editors involved in a dispute about this topic should beware and tread lightly, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice the failure of Locke Cole to assume good faith in his post of 25 September, justifying the comments by Quondum and Zac67. Further examples can be found by following the link provided by Quondum. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to Locke Cole's editing against consensus, disrupting the discussion chronology and edit warring, I'd like to direct attention to his severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations of lying and generally rude tone at least bordering on harassment. A productive discussion is impossible. I'd seriously appreciate an admin calling him to order officially. --Zac67 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please also note the recent, open edit warring on NTFS.[409][410][411][412] Locke Cole's edits were reverted for the sole reason of introducing ambiguity and not following WP:MOSNUM. --Zac67 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This ANI thread is about disruptive behaviour by Locke Cole, and as I see it, any comments relating to the merits of the debate and forum (for example by Gusfriend above) will only distract from the purpose here. I confirm Zac67's observation above: there is a long history on this topic, including (section 'Should it be there at all?') accusations of lying, failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and generally being unpleasant to interact with. Included are accusations such as the one above against Dondervogel 2. This unpleasantness by Locke Cole and the failure of the community to censure him caused me (about a year ago) to decide to leave WP. I will no doubt leave again, but for now, I'll see whether the WP community can restore a little my faith in managing this disruptive behaviour. What is needed to deal with this? —Quondum 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you knew anything, anything at all, about technology it would be amazing. Instead you're going against our sources AND WP:COMPUNITS by reverting changes to bring our articles into reality. Truly amazing to see you all feel like victims when you're the belligerents here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Too much drama. This is a long-running dispute between essentially two warring parties. Claims of “editing against consensus” should be looked upon with critical scrutiny as they can often be a tactical move that is the Wikipedia equivalent of leaving Novichok on a doorknob to remove inconvenient obstacles. On this long-running war (over whether Wikipedia should adopt terminology like “gibibits” instead of "gigabits”) “consensuses” tend to actually comprise just one complainant and a fatigued friend extracted from the woodwork who barely cares. Were someone to induce just one or two more people to somehow care and join these discussions, purported consensuses simply swing the other way.

This dispute truly had a consensus many years ago with very many editors weighing in and a consensus discerned and declared with an admin supervising. At that time, Dondervogel 2 (then known as Thunderbird, if I recall correctly) didn’t accept that consensus and doesn't agree today with the current policy that sprang from that consensus. Nothing has since changed other than drama persists. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Quondum said above that there is a long history on this topic and Greg L says that it is a long-running war. As I mentioned above, the way to solve the underlying root cause, the best way of getting more involvement in the discussion and stop having this pop up again in a few months and a few months after that is a formal RfC at the WP:Village Pump which then becomes a formal consensus at WP:MOSNUM. Once it is there it applies everywhere in the project, people can be referred to the MOS in correcting their edits and sanctions can be applied to those who continue to act against consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend: I wish to add canvassing to the list of Locke Cole's disruptive activities. He has summoned Greg_L at least twice [413] [414], knowing that Greg_L would support his position. Except when summoned by canvassing, Greg_L was not involved in the discussion on any of the templates since [2008], when he supported the disruptive activities of the socks Fnagaton and Glider87. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: He has summoned Greg_L at least twice 2021-06-21T19:06:37 2022-09-28T21:50:37, knowing that Greg_L would support his position. (original edited to add dates to diff links) As to the first linked diff, that comment was posted over a month after Greg L had already participated in the same discussion: 2021-05-07T23:27:25. As to the second diff, I provided Dondervogel 2 with an explanatory diff (2021-06-23T01:45:08, where Greg L had participated in a discussion at Quantities of bytes regarding header titles), and instead of dropping the stick and stepping away, they doubled down by casting aspersions (see Special:Diff/1113072411). As Greg L was involved in the discussion at the Quantities of bytes template, you made his involvement important when you used a separate talk page as justification for making changes he had previously opposed: Special:Diff/1056250211. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Sort of like how Quondum just showed up randomly here I presume.

Now that we've settled Dondervogel 2's latest attempts take issue with my behavior, can we please address their behavior in so far as WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:CANVASS (for the Quondum canvassing) and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goes? I'm still preparing my WP:BOOMERANG proposal, but clearly if they're going to escalate to casting aspersions about me, this needs to be stopped now.

@Dondervogel 2: I see you can spend time here making more aspersions against me that are unfounded, can you spare a moment to reply to my question on your talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it’s time for a reality check and history lesson since this tendentious behavior by Dondervogel 2 isn’t going away and occurred so long ago, almost no one currently on Wikipedia remembers.

First off, I’m a senior mechanical engineer at a major electronic manufacturer, where I help establish engineering standards for the company. Although I’m close to retirement, I’m not yet retired and have better things to do with my life that spend time here dealing with tendentiousness that makes Wikipedia’s articles look foolish.

Secondly, no one “summons” me. I seldom visit Wikipedia anymore to edit and happened to notice an “1” badge on my alert bell because my name had been mentioned on that template page.

An objective look at the most recent 100 of Dodgervogel 2’s edits shows him to be a near-single-purpose account user with an apparent obsession over how Wikipedia should be using terminology like “kibibytes” and “mebibits.”

The consensus hammered out years ago, which resulted in the current MOSNUM policy was one that Dondervogel 2 (then known as “Thunderbird2” or something like that) vehemently disagreed with. Sometime after the consensus went against his position, Thunderbird 2 dropped off the radar… I don’t remember when and the circumstances, just that there was no disruption for a while.

Now, newly reincarnated as Dondervogel 2, he spends an unusual amount of time on Template:Quantities_of_bits, which links to an uncanny amount articles, and where Dondervogel 2 seems to always have a presence.

Wikipedia doesn’t need those tables featuring the “gibibit” terms if the price is continual disruption. Those units are largely ignored by the mainstream computer world and the computer press; Dell doesn’t use them in their literature or packaging. Same for Apple. ‘PC World’ and ‘MacWorld’ don’t use them… unless perhaps it is an article of a proposed standard that never took off. Spell checkers from Apple—a tech company—don’t even have those terms in the dictionary… when I try to type “gibibits,” my spell checker tries to auto-correct it to giblets.

If Dondervogel 2’s contribution was to just produce a nice table and let the community use it as the MOSNUM-memorialized consensus intended, that would be fine. But instead his tendentiousness expresses itself as doing his best to put that table in articles where the units aren’t used… as if “keeping the units front and center amounts to keeping the dream alive” that the computer world will one-day follow Wikipedia’s lead.

Finally, as for me somehow being in Locke Cole’s hip pocket, there’s zero truth to that. Locke and I were on opposite ends of a different disagreement (linking dates) around the same timeframe and it was a bitter ending for Locke when the consensus went against his wishes. Though Locke didn’t like it, he accepted the consensus and didn’t edit against it… or at least didn't edit against it much as I recall. Greg L (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Dondervogel 2 casting aspersions

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Evidence and Discussion

During discussion at Template talk:Quantities of bits I had advised Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to inform other editors who had expressed concern over the topic under discussion of the new discussion at this new talk page. They seemed to largely ignore that, ultimately pinging Quondum instead. Noticing that Greg L (who had previously participated in discussions at Template talk:Quantities of bytes) had been conspicuously absent from the other ping's, I finally did what Dondervogel 2 appeared incapable of doing: ping of Greg L. To which Dondervogel 2 replied (with an edit summary of why?) What is the reason for wanting to involve Greg L? I answered with a diff of Greg's previous participation, asking I wonder perhaps if you could explain why you'd exclude him? And instead of recognizing their error, they elected to cast aspersions about why he was pinged: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. Is that a good criterion for involving a new editor? I replied Where did I imply this? I expect an answer to this Dondervogel 2.

No reading of what I wrote could possibly be taken as inviting him because he would support my position, nor the logical fallacy that follows. After receiving no answer but witnessing Dondervogel 2 continuing to edit elsewhere, I took the behavioral issue directly to their talk page: With this edit you commented in a reply to me the following: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. I had replied, asking Where did I imply this?. Can you explain your comment as I've already asked? To which they replied, adding conditions to any answer (clearly now meeting WP:ASPERSIONS as they are unable to substantiate their false claims about me): I will consider responding to your questions once they are expressed as questions (or requests, but not demands) and when you learn to assume good faith. Further replies on their talk page yielded no answer, just further demands to meet conditions even after explaining that such conditions are inappropriate (especially in dispute resolution).

Request

My goal from the beginning of that line of discussion was to ensure that any concerned parties on other talk pages were informed of the discussion now taking place at this alternate venue. Dondervogel 2 appears to be both WP:FORUMSHOPping and engaging in WP:CANVASSing by being selective in who they ping and when. As they refuse to answer my WP:ASPERSIONS concerns (I suspect because they can't, but they also refused to withdraw them as well), I am asking for an administrator to either directly ask them to answer for their claims against me, or block them indefinitely until such time as they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at NTFS

In case it helps, here's another example of edit warring by Locke Cole, this time at NTFS: One revert on at 05:50 on 4 Oct and then three reverts on 5 Oct, at 15:57, 16:02, and 16:36. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In case it helps, the sun rose this morning, and after a week Dondervogel 2 still hasn't answered the demand on his talk page to explain why he's casting aspersions about me. They apparently also believe that their comments are more important than anyone else's and tried to place this sub-thread above mine from nearly a week ago. Oh, and Quondum, who has never edited NTFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), made an appearance randomly apparently to carry on their disruptive abuse of consensus by changing an article to units not used in any of the sources. So in addition to a WP:COMPUNITS violation, we're now seeing a WP:V violation. Anyone wanna do something about the editors ruining Wikipedia and making it a laughingstock of the internet with this -ibibyte/ibibit dreck? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot bickering between you and Locke, Dondervogel 2. I don’t have time to wade through all the drama edit by edit. So… I have a fair question that might save everyone some time. Have you been editing in full compliance with the letter and spirit of WP:COMPUNITS? Greg L (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Greg L: It is no secret I used to edit as Thunderbird2. I stopped editing because of bullying by Fnagaton and his band of socks. You were heavily involved at that time and you never once suggested to Fnagaton he could improve Wikipedia by stopping his disruptive behaviour, so why should I consider you a neutral third party? And why should I consider your question a fair one when it is addressed only at me and not at the editor causing the disruption? Nevertheless, I shall assume good faith and respond accordingly.

  • This particular sub-thread is about NTFS. I have not edited at NTFS recently (I’m not sure I ever have, but it was not on my watch list before Locke Cole brought up the subject at WP:MOSNUM. I can safely say that all recent edits I have made there comply with any guideline you choose to mention, because I have made no recent edits there.
  • The broader thread was precipitated by Locke Cole’s interventions at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#JEDEC_column. You only have to read a few lines to see Locke Cole’s multiple unfounded accusations. The content issues there are about what name to use for the 'JEDEC' column. I don't see the relevance of COMPUNITS to that heading, so yes, I assert my edits there also comply.
  • If your question is not about one of those two articles/templates, you’ll have to be more specific. I can safely say I always try to comply with the spirit of all aspects of MOSNUM. Do my edits also follow the letter? Probably not all of them, but I don’t believe any editor who has made more than (say) 1000 edits to Wikipedia has done so without ever falling foul of one aspect or another, and COMPUNITS in particular is full of internal contradictions (remove all unambiguous prefixes but keep the article unambiguous is a tall order and you are probably the only editor who consistently used to achieved that – I can’t speak for editors today, except that I know Locke Cole makes no attempt to disambiguate, which is why his edits were reverted several times at NTFS, by different editors).
  • You said in a previous post you are a senior engineer nearing retirement and don’t have time for this nonsense. Well, I am a senior physicist nearing retirement and I don’t have time for this nonsense either, so why don’t you demonstrate your good faith and help me stop the nonsense by addressing Locke Cole’s disruption instead of calling my behaviour into question without evidence?

  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As one of the parties involved in NTFS, I'd like to report that the edit conflict has been resolved. Locke Cole has seen reason and properly fixed the inconsistencies and included proper disambiguation notes. Thank you for this!

What hasn't really been addressed here though is the bullying, generally rude tone, severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations, frequent disruptive editing and edit warring made by Locke Cole. I'd just like to quote a few phrases from this very page and the ones linked above: If you knew anything, anything at all, about technology it would be amazing., Please refrain from lying then, apparently this lying thing is catching, Or you just gonna keep repeating that lie. Do these represent the desired tone for WP? Are they totally OK to use around here? Personally, I'd like to continue looking for a solution to the initial issue, but if the atmosphere remains this toxic, there's no way to get anywhere. Please, could someone take a look at the mess and try to mediate? I think it's still time that a call to order may prevent further damage. If this is allowed to continue without moderation it's not going to end well. --Zac67 (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Time out. I see the confusion here, and some editors are too quick to throw around inflammatory wikirhetoric like “edit warring” without thinking through whether they themselves might not understand Wikipedia’s policies.

All this wiki-drama is product of only four castaways on Lord of the Bytes island, and they’re warring over an issue that was long settled. It’s a three-to-one issue with Locke Cole, who appears to be the only editor active who is attempting to ensure Wikipedia’s articles don’t look foolish by using terminology unused by the mainstream computer world in advertising, packaging, brochures, or user manuals, and the mainstream computer press never use.

Those who are editing in violation of WP:COMPUNITS may not be aware of the prodigious effort into the RFC that lead to WP:COMPUNITS—and the large number of participants in that RFC.

My evidence that there may be confusion over what MOSNUM calls for:

• Here is an edit diff by Zac67 in which he wrote this as an edit comment: if you create ambiguity don't expect others to fix your mess.

• Here is an edit diff by Quondum in which he wrote this as an edit comment: prefix use was very inconsistent; throughout, binary prefixes are clearly intended, so making these unambiguous.

It’s notable that both those editors are endeavoring to address “ambiguity” (which is in reference to how terms like “megabyte” aren’t equal if one is talking about RAM or storage), yet this ambiguity is precisely what the RFC—as memorialized in WP:MOSNUM, addressed. That clear and well-thought through consensus was that

1. Wikipedia should disambiguate using the same techniques the rest of the computer world uses, and…
2. Not use terms and symbols like “kibibit” and “kib” as pretty much no one in our readership recognizes them.

Now here is the edit history of Template:Quantities of bits. There we find a lot of familiar names: Dondervogel 2, Zac67, Quondum, and Locke Cole.

This issue, which boils down to a belief (or faith-based view) that if Wikipedia began using terminology like “kibibits” in an “Oh, didn’t you know?” fashion, that might one-day lead to the rest of the world adopting them. This has been going on since 2008.

In the last 14+ years, is there any evidence that anyone in the computer world slapped their forehead upon seeing these units mentioned on Wikipedia and saw to it that the packaging on boxes of computers at Costco read “Now with 16 gibibytes of RAM”?

What has changed since 2008? (Other than editorial conflict, flame wars, and wiki-drama are still occurring and there's zero reason for it.)

Clearly, significant passion surrounds this issue. Dondervogel 2, then as Thunderbird 2, made a special page, titled The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes.

So I ask everyone who has found themselves at odds with Locke Cole to respond to this question: WP:COMPUNITS reads as follows… please read this:

The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used except:

• when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes;
• in a direct quote using the IEC prefixes;
• when explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes; or
• in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.

References
Wikipedia follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 2²⁰ and 2¹⁰ respectively) and their unit symbols (e.g. MB and KB) for RAM and decimal prefixes for most other uses. Despite the IEC's 1998 international standard creating several new binary prefixes (e.g. mebi-, kibi-, etc.) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal SI prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 10⁶ and 10³ respectively) from the binary ones, and the subsequent incorporation of these IEC prefixes into the ISO/IEC 80000, consensus on Wikipedia in computing-related contexts favours the retention of the more familiar but ambiguous units KB, MB, GB, TB, PB, EB, etc. over use of unambiguous IEC binary prefixes. For detailed discussion, see WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive/Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008).

Now, I have three questions for all the editors active on this thread (Dondervogel 2, Zac67, Quondum, and Locke Cole), which are as follows:

1. Did you know that MOSNUM reads this way?
2. Did you read all of the above excerpt from WP:MOSNUM?
3. If not, are you willing to abide by this policy?

As I’m active on this thread, I’ll answer my own questions: I haven’t been editing on this topic for years, but when I was, I abided by the spirit and letter of WP:MOSNUM and WP:COMPUNITS. And I am quite familiar with WP:MOSNUM; I helped write portions of it. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm very aware it reads this way. I'm grateful you fully expanded the embedded footnote that explains the reasoning, as it seems to be ignored or overlooked by the other participants here. We have a site-wide consensus against using IEC prefixes in articles. If there is a matter of ambiguity, WP:COMPUNITS prescribes methods of resolving that. It is unacceptable for editors here to edit war over implementing in our articles what has been an accepted for 14 years (and with no changes to really justify an adjustment in all that time). My goal has always been to follow our sources and the long-standing consensus at COMPUNITS. My first foray into this issue was when Dondervogel 2 was making edits like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Each of these edits goes against the long-standing consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Locke.

Are we going to hear from any of the others?

Particularly Dondervogel 2, who filed this ANI. We should hear from him. Please answer the above three questions.

Greg L (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Greg L, you are doing yourself no credit, trying to sidetrack this thread into a MoS discussion and showing your supercilious tone by linking that file: you've gone off track and do not deserve a response, since you are using the same tactics as Locke Cole, demanding a response to a question designed to sidetrack the purpose of the ANI thread. For any uninvolved admin thinking that I am trying to avoid the question: I have already made clear that my position on binary prefixes neutral, though that is hardly relevant, since this thread is not about the MoS. —Quondum 00:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your protestations of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are noted, but just don’t withstand critical scrutiny when one compares what you say to what you persistently do, Quondum. Your claiming that you are “neutral” to the binary prefixes is wholly undermined by edits like this.

  It stretches the imagination to think that by this far into this drama that you still don’t understand the WP:COMPUNITS policy. Notwithstanding that you just now claimed to be “neutral” on the manual of style and the underlying widely-felt and well-deliberated RFC that went into it, your edit history shows your real intent: 1) you have been editing against consensus and against policy, 2) you know you have been, 3) you objected when another editor took you to task for it, 4) and then you resort to wikilawyering and drama creation in an effort to get out of hot water after your hand was caught in the cookie jar so you can continue to do as you please.

  Important point here: Now, this is something that maybe you might truly not know about, but per WP:CONLEVEL, a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Perhaps when you and Dondervogel 2 work in concert, you feel you have achieved a de facto consensus to do as you please and flout a wider consensus, but things don’t work that way on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, “consensus” rules supreme, is precisely defined, and those definitions have been labored over in order to preserve peace, make the project a better collaborative writing environment, and make Wikipedia a better product. Now…

  All of this can go away if you merely agree to stop editing against a widely-felt, 14-year old consensus that every other editor abides by.

  Can you simply agree to do that so we can put this behind us? Greg L (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Kala7992 repeatedly violating WP:BLP policy

Kala7992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new contributor making repeated violations of WP:BLP policy in the Adam Levine article, [415] after calling on other contributors to " start an edit war" on the talk page. [416] Note that the source cited doesn't support much of what is claimed, and that there has already been a discussion of the broader issue at WP:BLPN, where consensus was clear. [417] See also the repeated personal attacks on Talk:Adam Levine. This contributor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no violation, editors at the talk page of the Adam Levin article have refuted your claims that there was a violation and have provided numerous sources where the affairs were committed. You aere simply trying to suppress any mention of the info despite many editors' complaints Kala7992 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have already noted, it can clearly be seen that the source cited in no way supports the illiterate content you have been inserting into the article. This is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. As are edit warring, and calling on other contributors to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors User:Spiderwinebottle and User: Invisiboy42293 have disputed your claims, so your claims that "the consensus was clear" at [457] are simply factually incorrect Kala7992 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Kala7992, discussions are not conducted through a majority vote, but by WP:CONSENSUS guided and supported with Wikipedia policy and logical arguments. Calling for edit warring was a bad move. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but User: AndyTheGrump keeps undoing changes of editors and removing any trace of Adam Levine's alleged affairs despite their impact, and falsely claims that there was a violation of WP:BLP policy when in fact there is none, and other editors have argued that there was no violation as well Kala7992 (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

also id argue that AndyTheGrump started edit warring by constantly undoing and removing the contribution of editors who added info about the recent alleged affairs of Adam Levine Kala7992 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would highly advise you to withdraw/disavow calls to edit war. Removing BLP violations is a stated exception. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

i dont know how to remove it from the view history section. Also its important to remember that Andy The Grump started the edit war by undoing people's changes on a repeated basis Kala7992 (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't, simply state that you withdraw the call to edit war. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to edit-war this clear and unambiguous WP:BLP violation into the article are ongoing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You started the edit-war not me by repeatedly undoing all edits involving the reported affairs, and I havent violated WP:BLP Kala7992 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can read your edit, and the source cited. The source cited does not support the content. Per Wikipedia policy, WP:BLP violations must be removed. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, calls for others to edit war, and personal attacks. This is a very bad look, and you should keep it on the talk page where BLP articles are concerned. — Czello 11:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The talk page has been unproductive, withe editors providing sources for claims only for Andy to reverse those changes and decalre there is a "consensus" when there is one. Kala7992 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, the consensus was reached at WP:BLPN, after input from multiple experienced contributors familiar with relevant policy. Clearly we can add an inability to read to the many other reasons why Kala7992 should not be permitted to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have parblocked Kala7992 from the Adam Levine article for edit warring for this edit. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Special:Diff/1115220775, Kala makes several claims. The public was made aware on September 20, 2022, which is arguably cited since the citation is from September 20. That the alleged messages were of a sexual nature. This is not cited (the citation only claims "flirtatious manner", which is very different) and would appear to be a WP:BLP violation. That Levine's marriage is "in suspense", which is hard to understand but which, in any case, does not appear in the citation and would appear to be a WP:BLP violation. The diff makes a claim that's hard to understand about a yoga teacher, which does not appear in the citation. That there's a lawsuit, which does not appear in the citation and would appear to be a WP:BLP violation. I want to be clear, all of the claims may be true (I don't know and, frankly, don't care about Levine), but would require citations for these claims. These claims do not appear in the CNN article and on that basis, I think AndyTheGrump is correct to remove this information under the WP:BLP exception to edit-warring. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but I don't consider a partial block in any way sufficient. Not after repeated insertions (I count 10) of biographical content unsupported by the source cited, calling on others to edit war, and a complete refusal to take the slightest notice of what other people have been saying. It seems highly unlikely to me that this new contributor (if indeed new) will ever be able to contribute productively, and I certainly shouldn't be expected to put up with the sort of nonsense (e.g. "Fuck this guy, he needs to be banned"[418]) I've had to put up with on the Levine talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I only made the block to halt the edit warring, and only based it on that- it is not a judgement by me on any further action. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting for the record that Kala stated on their user talk that they are "done" with editing the Levine article. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I know this is over, but I just find it funny that you AND Kala both posted here at exactly 6:40 AM (my time). Crazy. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 03:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by borsoka in Substrate in Romanian

User borsoka (talk · contribs) repeatedly engages in disruptive behavior on article Substrate in Romanian; adds tags to an article when the content tagged is sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable, does not engage in consensus building, repeatedly disregards explanations, and claims his understanding of the topic is above that of other editors and cited authors.

During attempts at conversation, topic Felecan&Felecan, the user has ignored requests to contribute with sources and phrasings that might help alleviate what he describes as "original research" and (in fact cited lines from books written by members of the Romanian Academy and University language professors). Further attempts to mend the situation have not been met with good faith assumption. --Aristeus01 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Warned. Look, borsoka, you need to do better. Your tone and tenor often falls short, so please avoid talking down to other contributors (it never helps), and also avoid edit warring, especially with terse edit summaries such as "fringe," per se. I have no idea who here might be advancing a novel theory, but I suggest that both of you work towards bringing more expertise to this dispute. The top of the talk page lists multiple Wikiprojects that you could post a neutral message to seeking assistance. As well, there are dispute resolution requests, like WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RSN (WP:DRN not recommended) which you could make use of to solicit further outside input. Good luck. El_C 16:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your mediation! Aristeus01 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C:. Look a fringe theory is a fringe theory. Can you refer to any academic works stating that Sanksrit or Proto-Indo-European was spoken in the lands now forming Romania or that Romanian speakers came from India to Romania? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh, you're asking me? El_C 02:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you stated that the edit summary "fringe" should be avoided. I assumed you have read a reliable academic source verifying the statement that Sanksrit is one of the (!) substrate languages of Romanian. 02:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I said. If you're unwilling or unable to read a warning from an admin closely enough so as to absorb the crux of its message, then maybe this collaborative project isn't really for you. That said, if you have any reasonable questions, by all means, ask away. El_C 02:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You were stating that I improperly used the term "fringe". If my understanding is correct you cannot prove that it was improperly used. It is quite obvious that you have not noticed that the reporting editor makes unilateral merges ([419]) and adds content based on books published more than a hundred years ago, ignoring modern Romanian academic consensus ([420]). Should I state that this collaborative project is not really for administrators who fail to study the issue before making judgement? Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem I noted in my original warning to you, Borsoka. You are combative and adversarial, and I'll add to that you fail to read closely. What I said, in part, was that that a terse edit summary which only said the word "fringe" fell short. That was just a minor part of my warning message to you, which for some reason you've latched on to and have gone to distort. But doing so reflects poorly on your approach to collaboration. And I assure you that it works against your own interests in this matter.

Now, the crux of my warning to you was simple: to dial it back with the patronizing, bad faith tone. There are only a few hundreds active admins on the English Wikipedia and only a few tens truly active at any given time. If you think you could rely on finding expertise from any one of them on whatever topic, especially non-English ones, you are operating with unrealistic expectations. As I had said: I have no idea who here might be advancing a novel theory, but I suggest that both of you work towards bringing more expertise to this dispute. Then, I explained how to go about that.

At the event, not only is it not my role to engage this content dispute with you, I am prohibited by policy from doing so. Regardless, you are now verging on tendentious editing, which is sanctionable. So, again, please read my original warning closely. I'm not gonna go around in circles with you like this indefinitely, so you should take this as a final warning. El_C 03:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The crux of my above message was that you have not studied the issue (but without mentioning the content dispute I can hardly prove it). For instance, the edit summary "fringe" was followed by extensive reasoning both in the Talk page and in template messages. Please understand that administrators who do not do their homework before making judgement do not contribute to the project's success. Nevertheless, if you want to sanction me, do it. I stop discussing this issue because it is quite obvious that you do not understand what is my problem with your action. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka blocked one week: User_talk:Borsoka#Block. El_C 04:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sparkle1

Sparkle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I gave Sparkle1 a warning because I did not think their edit was constructive, they then call me a "bad faith wally" (1). I explain on their talk page why I gave them the warning and they then call me "inflammatory and a hypocrite" (2).

They were involved in a previous discussion here. Their talk page has a lot of warnings (they have removed some which can be seen in the history of the page). Sahaib (talk)

Pinging editors from previous discussions @Czello:, @M2Ys4U:, @Levi OP:, @Levivich: Sahaib (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a patently absurd complaint, the user complaining, is complaining because I have asked them not to interact with me on my talk page. They complained about me making 'unconstructive edits' which were patently designed to be inflammatory when I am clearly not a new user. The user in question then removed the same information that I had removed from the article in question. This can simply be resolved by an interaction ban preventing Sahaib from interacting with me on my talk page. If they had simply not engaged in inflammatory hypocrisy by treating me like a complete idiot, and had instead said nothing or made comment on the article discussion page none of this would have occurred. Rudeness 101 aimed at other users and infantilism 101 aimed at other users have been undertaken by Sahaib and they need to learn not to behave in the way they have done as they have made the situation in the first place, made it worse, and then blown it out of all proportions. This complaint is vexatious and the user who made it should be warned to not waste other users' time in this fashion. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The pinging of users from a previous discussion is a naked attempt designed to try and 'call in voices' i.e. a form of canvassing which I view is an attempt at trying to 'win' and 'create a battle ground' and a 'pile on' for this discussion to be given more attention than it warrants. These actions by Sahaib are in no way helpful to users of Wikipedia or Wikipedia as a whole. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had run ins with Sparkle before. They delete talk page comments. They insult. They ignore warnings. They side-step issues. I've tried to bring them to account in the past and they're very rude, uncooperative, and belligerent. This warning can't come soon enough. I hope they learn to be better. doktorb _words^deeds 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The complaint doktorb made was vexatious and they were told as much by those who interacted with the relevant discussion. Talk pages are treated differently to other parts of Wikipedia and both users should know that. Doktorb was told that in the discussion they bought and were told was without merit. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

In the last discussion I pointed out how this user has a habit of making aggressive comments/edit summaries and generally struggles to adhere to WP:CIVIL. They were warned by Johnuniq but a glance at his contributions shows they still occasionally have a battleground mentality[421][422][423]. Rather absurdly, they also threatened OP for informing them of this discussion, even though OP is obligated to do so. — Czello 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous complaint and this complaint are vexatious...there seems to be an ignoring of the uncivil interactions to start with and the flogging of a dead horse in this and the previous complaint. Users are more than allowed to remove anything from their User talk page. This would never have occurred if the very uncivil comments were made by Sahaib in the first place. Their comments were very rude and infantilising. Treating me like I knew not what I was doing. I then looked at the page they complained about my edits about, and they had removed the exact information they had complained I had removed. This is a complete farce of a complaint and vexatious as all giddy up. When a person is rude to me they should not be getting away scot-free and need to learn not to create such a situation in the first place. If Sahaib had simply seen me remove their comments and then stopped interacting, or better yet not interacted in the first place. If so then this waste of time would not be happening. They should be warned about their conduct. The interactions from User:Czello show the pinging of users by Sahaib was clear canvassing to encourage a pile on to stack this discussion. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if Sahaib was rude to you (I'm not sure I'm seeing it, but whatever) that doesn't justify you being uncivil back - especially when you have a history of it. When a person is rude to me they should not be getting away scot-free and need to learn not to create such a situation in the first place. - this is entirely the wrong attitude and sounds like you're blaming Sahaib for your own incivility. — Czello 15:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The above comments are thinner than water finding pavement cracks. The quote you make of my previous post, while you think shows me in some bad light is simply evoking WP:Boomerang. User talk pages are treated differently. Don't let the complainant here off the hook, because they have made a complaint. Look at their actions as well. Not doing so is simply absurd. I do not take kindly to being treated like an infant, and I take even less kindly to having comments about my editing ridiculed only to find the complainer has done an identical edit. They should not have interacted in the first place with me. Making this complaint here is a form of bullying and battleground so they can feel like they have won. I asked them to stop interacting with me but they have persisted. Now you are furthering this absurdity. Don't think I don't see you complaining about my comments, I do, but I will not stand by and be treated like some idiot unable to tell people who are being rude to me to go away, stop being wallies, and that they are being hypocritical. You would, I imagine, having interacted with you before, not be too pleased if someone came along complaining of you making 'unconstructive edits' only to find out that they had done identical editing to you. Let's drop this dog and pony show and let's get back to what Wikipedia is and this is clearly not it. User:Sahaib is not new around here and should not be making such comments on any established user talk page about unconstructive editing. It was not vandalism, it was not anything of the source. They should be more than familiar with WP:BRD, not WP:wikilawyer...then do the same edit. This is a farce and is vexatious. The complainant is not immune because they are the complainant and vexatious complaints like this need stamping out.

What User:Sahaib has got their knickers in a twist over is this edit. They then do this edit and then this, which removes the superfluous cruft infobox from the George Osborne article. There was ZERO need for the interactions on my talk page in the first place, especially as both they and I removed the infobox from the article. Context is key here. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking my explanation of what happened 1. Sahaib (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sahaib, you clearly have been around these parts long enough to know that user talk pages can have anything removed from them by the relevant user. You clearly also must have known commenting on my talk page in the way you did was inflammatory. How exactly was it 'unconstructive', especially in light of your removing the same information? Why exactly did you post on my talk page in the first place? What benefit was derived and was it really constructive and in good faith? Sparkle1 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the comment he just linked, I cannot for the life of me see how that was "inflammatory". It was a perfectly reasonable explanation of his reasoning. Your response, however, was inflammatory. — Czello 16:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

By their edit summaries shall they be known. doktorb _words^deeds 16:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I do though think this] it though inflammatory as they then removed the same information from the article, and treated me like an idiot knowing nothing about how Wikipedia works...they really should be asking should I post this in the first place? Context is key and so is the whole picture.

For a summary which seems absurd here is a timeline:

1. this edit was made by myself at 22:01 removing the infobox;
2. Then this edit was made by Sahaib at 23:42 reverting;
3. Then this was posted by Sahaib] at 23:43 complaining on my talk page;
4. Then this was done by Sahaib] at 23:50 removing the infobox in the form of an article split.

Hardly the most constructive carry-on by Sahaib, particularly as they took to jumping all over me like I did not know what I was doing and throwing round 'unconstructive' and pointing me to the sandbox. All the while removing the same infobox from the article. This is an absurdity and the hangers-on and showing this to be a circus of a storm in a teacup. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, FYI User:Czello don't assume He/Him/His pronouns. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

He literally has a userbox on his page saying he's male. — Czello 17:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to this They were warned by Johnuniq but a glance at his contributions shows they still occasionally have a battleground mentality In relation to me. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you notice that sentence refers to you using two singular they's and one male pr onoun? Usually when people assume male pronouns, they don't use singular they. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

:::This may be the case but they still used male pronouns....Sparkle1 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• So, Sahaib, when someone tells you to stay off their user talk, you need to stay off their user talk except to leave appropriate templates. Sparkle1, stop the battleground interactions and personal attacks; consider this an official warning. Calling someone a "bad faith wally" and a hypocrite is a no-go; talk about edits, not editors. The next instance of battleground behavior, personal attacks, or assuming bad faith will result in a block. And for heaven's sake learn to write shorter. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  From what I can see, Sahaib hasn't posted on Sparkle1's talk page since Sparkle1 requested he stay off, except to notify them of this discussion (which he's obligated to do). — Czello 08:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would also say that Sparkle1 should also take care when marking edits as minor as that has a specific meaning and should be considerate of other users and consistently use the edit summary.Gusfriend (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Ifuvuebeifhsuchd

The editor Ifuvuebeifhsuchd has vandalised the article Kateri Amman a total of four times, POV pushing, and altering details by changing words and removing cited content, without offering any citations. The user was warned a total of four times as well, thrice by me, and did not desist over a span of weeks. I request some action to be taken against him editing this article. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, which has a specific meaning, see WP:VANDAL. Calling it that can be a personal attack for which you could be sanctioned. It's a content dispute and they may be being disruptive or edit-warring, however. Also, there's a big red sign at the top of this page that says when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I've done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

AnubisIbizu

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.

---

AnubisIbizu (talk · contribs) has shown persistent lack of assuming good faith and increased personal attacks against me in my attempts to engage in discussion at Talk:Sandra_Day_O'Connor#Military_spouse which has moved into a personal attack on my talk page after I made a similar revert (and notified them in good faith). Would appreciate someone checking on this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Note, AnubisIbizu removed this thread, which I put back into place. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. I notified zimzalabim several times that his edits appeared to be tainted by discriminatory animus. He continued to defend them, and I continued to let him know that the sort of edits that he was suggesting coincided with known racist bigotry groups. Then he reported me. AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not okay to refer to the actions of good-faith editors as "trolling" or "bigoted", to make unfounded accusations of "anti-military bias", or to suggest that they belong with the Proud Boys. These are all personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Or to use an edit summary to say " ZimZalaBim has been removing military factoids from Wikipedia. Please ignore his boogied edits. He has been doing the same trolling to Sandra Day O'Connor's page."[424] Doug Weller talk 09:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern of possible POV-pushing, as the same concern has been raised at Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[425] --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping cooler heads might emerge after some time away, but bad faith edits/summaries continue: [426]. And FWIW, I did start a discussion thread after my removal of that content: Talk:Veteran#US_Supreme_Court. I will now walk away from these articles, but I suspect AnubisIbizu will continue to edit war. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am new to this process. I apologize for assuming that Jim was the same editor if that is not true. But this user has been specifically targeting my edits for days now and removing them with no rationale other than that they are not noteworthy to him specifically. Meanwhile, I have been providing multiple articles to support my edits in every regard. Her either has a personal judge against me or has a personal distaste for military sevicemembers or veterans. That is the only reasonable inference to draw at this point.

He has repeatedly engaged in bad faith reversions. And he has done it on multiple pages for the same edit, thus violating the Three Reversion Rule.

He continues to target military-specific edits and try to remove the military from Wikipedia. Indeed, yhisour only substantive comment on any such edit has been that you he doesn't find military service noteworthy.

For example, 1, 2, 3.

I am not pushing any point of view. I have simply been adding a long-missing section of some pages about the military service of justices of the United States Supreme Court. There are numerous articles written about how that service impacts their perspective and jurisprudence, yet this Zim user continues to try to erase these additions specifically

AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Accusing editors of having a "personal distaste for military service members" is unacceptable bad faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe he just dislikes me and that is the reason he is specifically targeting military pages? What other inference is there to draw? I am assuming good faith here, but am coming up at a loss. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no substantive basis for his removals, that is my point. Draw whatever you want from that, but my point is that he is not editing in good faith, and I am. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If you were "assuming good faith", you wouldn't assume "maybe he just dislikes me" and would assume that there's a problem with the content you're adding. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For example, here are news articles talking about the justices' military service and how it affects the Court. 1, 2, 3, 4. Even the Supreme Court's own website discusses how military service affects their jurisprudence. And two peer-reviewed articles have discussed it. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1602 (2006); Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010).

I am trying to tell you that this Sim user is just trolling my edits, and if you read the talk pages you will see that he haas trying to remove the military from wiki pages. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Having read the talk pages you linked to, it is by no means clear to me that ZimZalaBim is "just trolling [your] edits". It is clear to me that your claim that "there is no substantive basis for his removals" is not true. They explain in this edit and this edit and this edit the reason for their objections, and it is up to you to gain consensus on the talk pages now the discussion is opened, not dismiss their apparently good faith concerns as "trolling" or "no substantive basis". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Having engaged AnubisIbizu in the discussion, I immediately find that they are unable to separate their opinion on trivial matters from sourced (and therefore includeable) fact. Moreover, they are aggressive and accusatory in pursuing the inclusion of such trivia, and do not hesitate to edit war. An editing sanction is necessary here. BD2412 T 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: an apparent WP:SPA has commented on each of the talk pages: Traynreck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you reported this at WP:SPI? This is either blatant socking or a Joe Job. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8BC:8C48:62A5:C5B (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim

ZimZalaBim has reported me on this page because he was following my edits, specifically on Sandra Day O'Connor and Veterans and repeatedly removing additions I made to pages related to Supreme Court justice that were in the military were military spouses. He repeatedly trolled me and demanded more and more citations to relevant articles. I explained how his comments and edits were akin to bigotry, and he played victim and has since reported me on this page. I engaged in good faith discussion, and he was not satisfied with being defeated in substantive chats. Thus, he is tagging my page and this page to smear me because he is upset. AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am new to this process. I apologize for assuming that Jim was the same editor if that is not true. But this user has been specifically targeting my edits for days now and removing them with no rationale other than that they are not noteworthy to him specifically. Meanwhile, I have been providing multiple articles to support my edits in every regard. Her either has a personal judge against me or has a personal distaste for military sevicemembers or veterans. That is the only reasonable inference to draw at this point.

He has repeatedly engaged in bad faith reversions. And he has done it on multiple pages for the same edit, thus violating the Three Reversion Rule.

He continues to target military-specific edits and try to remove the military from Wikipedia. Indeed, yhisour only substantive comment on any such edit has been that you he doesn't find military service noteworthy.

For example, 1, 2, 3.

I am not pushing any point of view. I have simply been adding a long-missing section of some pages about the military service of justices of the United States Supreme Court. There are numerous articles written about how that service impacts their perspective and jurisprudence, yet this Zim user continues to try to erase these additions specifically. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For example, here are news articles talking about the justices' military service and how it affects the Court. 1, 2, 3, 4. Even the Supreme Court's own website discusses how military service affects their jurisprudence. And two peer-reviewed articles have discussed it. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1602 (2006); Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010).

I am trying to tell you that this Zim user is just trolling my edits, and if you read the talk pages you will see that he haas trying to remove the military from wiki pages. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This was started as a separate thread but I have added it to the other for clarity. Nythar^T.C 03:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

​ Pinging ZimZalaBim to notify them. Nythar^T.C 03:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I had an encounter with this editor earlier today where they accused me of "following" them. I see their behavior has not improved through the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and here AnubisIbiszu is saying ZZB is using an IP to edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Day_O%27Connor&diff=prev&oldid=1115167964]. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to Checkuser. That wasn't me. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Checkusers won't connect an account to a specific IP address, so that's not going to happen – but you are hardly the only editor to have challenged AnubisIbizu on this particular point, and the IP also twice edited Fred Smoot, an article which you have never edited in a subject you have apparently no interest in, so there doesn't appear to be any particular reason to believe the claim that you were socking here. On the other hand, claiming that an editor is socking is a serious accusation, so AnubisIbizu should probably come up with some evidence for that claim or retract it. If they want to be taken seriously, they should also come up with some diffs which support their claims madde above rather than just vague handwaving about trolling and playing the victim – otherwise this all looks simply retaliatory and meritless. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is a red herring; moreover, statements by AnubisIbizu that ZimZalaBim's "comments and edits were akin to bigotry, and he played victim" are exemplary of the problematic nature of AnubisIbizu's conduct. Characterizing the exclusion of trivia from an article as bigotry is highly problematic. BD2412 T 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Indefblocked for obvious sockpuppetry

I have now indef WP:DUCK-blocked User:AnubisIbizu and their obvious sockpuppet User:Traynreck, who appeared within the past few hours to make the obviously false claim that they were an "ex-administrator taking it easy", and to weigh in on AnubisIbizu's discussions to agree with AnubisIbizu, using AnubisIbizu's writing style and cadence. I have no doubt they will be back in a different guise. BD2412 T 20:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to be a DUCK. An "ex-administrator" on a brand new account, who just happens to go back up Anubis at every discussion within minutes? Nah dawg. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Sock puppetry and canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahsa Amini

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.

---

Please block socks at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahsa Amini

• User:حمیدنوذری: CU blocked at fawiki: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Khabat4545/بایگانی
• User:Dyakozaman: CU blocked at fawiki: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Khabat4545/بایگانی
• User:Rezaalavi023: CU blocked at fawiki: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Khabat4545/بایگانی

They all have voted keep. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: As a heads up, I've opened up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khabat4545 to request that an EnWiki checkuser take a look at this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that I just closed that AfD. El_C 03:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl

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.

---

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
U:BHG has slid back into pouring gasoline on fires. She is under a community edit restriction regarding incivility, but seems to have no qualms but to make uncivil comments. Here she attacks Wbm1058. Here she attacks me on Wbm1058's page. Here she previously attacked me on my page. Of note also is her behavior through the whole of the move request on 40 "Death and state funeral of X" articles. While my close of the aforementioned RM was not stellar, that doesn't justify her behavior. When I stated I do not wish to engage with her she doubled down in engaging. UtherSRG (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It's my bedtime now, and having just finished feeding Citation bot with yet another huge batch of bare URLs, I am tired and winding down.

I don't have the energy now to write a long reply to this malicious complaint from an admin whose competence is in question and who appears to reject WP:ADMINACCT.

So just a few bullet points, without a many diffs as I would like:

1. I complained to UtherSRG about a bad close, but dropped it, because we seemed to be going nowhere. I reckoned that the next step would be move review, but was not sure I had the energy for that
2. Separately, other editors made complaints about UtherSRG's closes. What I had thought was a one-off error by UtherSRG was clearly part of a pattern of seriously sub-standard closes.
3. So I asked UtherSRG to revert their close, and leave another admin to close the discussion. They did.
4. I thanked UtherSRG for their reverts on 19:45, 5 October 2022, and thought that was the end of our engagement.
5. Note that at this point UtherSRG had raised with me no concerns about my conduct.
6. However, two days later, on 14:45, 7 October 2022, UtherSRG posted at User talk:Wbm1058 to ask a bout applying sanctions to me.
7. UtherSRG subsequently closed the RM discussion.
8. I posted[427] at User:Wbm1058 to query the close, and to challenge Wbm1058's criticism of me.
9. I then noticed a section above, where UtherSRG had asked Wbm1058 for advice sanctioning me. Not that UtherSRG had not notified me of any concerns about me, and that neither UtherSRG nor Wbm1058 notified me of that discussion.
10. I regard that as nasty, sneaky conduct unbecoming of an admin, so I posted[428] at User talk:Wbm1058 to note that concern.

This is a misuse of ANI. UtherSRG is objecting to well-founded complaints about their closes, and describing those complaints as an attack. Similarly, UtherSRG misuses the label "attack" to smear my response to Wbm1058's close. And they smear as an attack my complaint about their thoroughly sneaky and underhand efforts to get me sanctioned for a issue where they had expressed no concern to me.

I am particularly appalled by UtherSRG' complaint that When I stated I do not wish to engage with her she doubled down in engaging.

I had disengaged from UtherSRG on 5 October. It was UtherSRG who chose to re-engage, by sneakily calling for sanctions against me. My post noting that[429] was removed by Wbm1058.

I remain shocked that any admin would act as sneakily as UtherSRG has acted here, and am appalled that they choose to falsely claim that I was the one who chose to re-engage. When another editor has challenged your admin actions, thanked you for the remedies and disengaged ... it takes a remarkable level of chuztpah to sneakily try to get that editor sanctioned and then claim "disengage" when challenged.

If UtherSRG does not want to use admin powers transparently and to be accountable for their actions, they should reconsider their adminship. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Will someone tell me why we as a community tolerate habitual and intentional incivility from BHG that seemingly any other editor would long ago have been indeffed for? I know I'm not exactly known for being the nicest person on Wikipedia but good grief I've never gone nearly this far. Now will you please self-revert your closure of the state funerals RM? Or do we have to take it to WP:Move review for a week of high-profile focus on your lack of competence? - this alone is a pretty clear breach of BHG's edit restriction, let alone all the other examples one can gather from the provided diffs. Can we add another editing restriction about endless wikilawyering and indignant polemics, too? Or maybe we can realize that editing restrictions have clearly failed and try something different.
  I was in the middle of typing this up when I saw BHG's reply here. Wow. I think BHG just made UtherSRG's case better than anyone else could have. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: UtherSRG made a series of bad closes, as reported by others. In what way is it "uncivil" to note this series of failures as a lack of competence and to ask for a self-revert?
  Note that reason I put it so directly was to try to avoid the situation of a much more high-profile discussion at move review, which would have drawn much wider attention to the fact that a) UtherSRG had been making lots of bad closes, and b) in discussion showed no awareness of why those closes were bad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I make no claim that his closes were good. They may have been the worst closes in the history of Wikipedia for all I'm aware. Your attitude towards other users here still leaves much to be desired. It is perfectly possible for both 1: the closes were subpar and 2: you were uncivil, to both be true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  That does not answer my question. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that question of UtherSRG's competence was first raised by @Horse Eye's Back on 3 October, when they wrote[430] about UtherSRG:

  I must note that within their last 2,000 edits I was able to put together a clear noticeboard case for a ban from closing discussions with a slightly less strong case for a lack of competence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  UtherSRG lacks the competence to be a modern admin (honestly they might lack the competence of a modern editor as well but thats not really for this discussion and they've made it clear that they have a desire to learn), but we should still be civil. That being said while you were maybe on the line civility wise none of the diffs provided so far are really over the line, perhaps there stronger diffs which have not yet been shared. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is very hard to competently perform all the duties of "a modern admin". I see often see administrative incompetence, for example failure to move an article's talk page with the article. A significant part of my time is spent cleaning up after administrators and pseudo-administrators (e.g. page movers). None of us are perfect, and I acknowledge below a less-than-ideal administrative action on my part. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

BHG is easily provoked, but is not frivolous in raising objections to actions by others. I agree that this kerfuffle does not rise to the level of ANI. BD2412 T 02:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry but I can't see a WP:CIVIL problem in the first three links. Is the claim that a (I think single) use of "your lack of competence" in the context of the discussion at User talk:UtherSRG#An advice is worth a trip to ANI? That linked discussion seems to be drifting towards a conclusion that certain move closes were sub-optimum and BHG politely requested that the closure be self-reverted to avoid a need for a review. BHG should not have included a claim about competence but in context it's something that should be taken on board with the realization that some people are more blunt than others. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I was pinged to Uther's talk page and I participated in several of the RFCs and recommended overturning the close on review. I think BHG's concerns are reasonably well-founded and I don't think her bluntness rises to the level of a civility violation. Maybe a bit snippy but not an outright personal attack. I think Uther should be given a cursory slap on the wrist for trying to litigate criticism, and this thread should be closed. Andre🚐 02:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Second cursory slap with a small fish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Something does need to be done here. Not only has she bludgeoned the entire discussion at the state funeral RM, bludgeoned the first closer into reopening it (whether it should have been reopened or not, that was not the way to go about it) then, after being warned about bludgeoning by wbm1058 when they closed it, she straight away goes to their talk page to leave another 6kb wall of text[431] that, among other things, accuses them of anti-intellectual bullying. This is exactly the sort of behaviour which led to both her desysop by arbcom and the community restriction. How many more final warnings does she get? Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have blocked BHG for 12 hours as community sanction enforcement, under her civility probation. If we impose sanctions like that, and then don't enforce them when the person continues to act uncivil, they become worthless. And "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It is often inflammatory to question another's competence, but is it automatically uncivil? And was it urgent to block? John (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  The restriction explicitly allows blocking at any administrator's discretion, and Tamzin cites at least three instances of clear civility breaches, so the block is clearly justified. Questioning another editors competence can be done civilly, but BHG did not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  The competence questioning I identified was only one instance of incivility from BHG. The diffs linked in the original filing here show repeated and intentional incivility on BHG's part. Which of course she refuses to even acknowledge in favor of arguing about how she's right and everyone else is wrong. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I used to have problems with BHG but came to realize they are a fundamentally good-faith editor who does really difficult time consuming work (bare links) and well if you just ignore the occasional rants then you get the desert. And we need a bull like BHG to do that work as sometimes there are roadblocks that need clearing it's not for the feint of heart. Now, there is no question BHG will automatically turn on "bad-faith mode" whenever confronted with a disagreement and often goes too far in turning around what was a work disagreement into a personal one. On the other hand BHG can be quite supportive in a personal way when working with editors which is not that common. Maybe the trick for BHG on Wikipedia is focus on the issue not the person when dealing with criticism because the consequences of being right, clever or devastating to the other side are not worth it if it becomes personal, rather becomes a dumpster fire. -- GreenC 15:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think this is a wonderful description of BHG's strengths and weaknesses. However, your last comments, which imply that BHG can change their behavior, are unrealistic. BHG has been around for a very long time and, despite repeated problems, has been unable to change their behavior, so the possibility of a change now seems remote. As for Tamzin's very short block, I endorse it. I don't see why BHG's good work should excuse her bad behavior. She needs to know that there are consequences.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I stopped interacting with u:BrownHairedGirl over their behaviour, attitude, and conduct over Signatures. They tend to be stubborn, dictatorial, and blinkered. I hope they're on the way to reform their behaviour. doktorb _words^deeds 15:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment One instance in isolation may not be automatically uncivil, but during this move discussion there are multiple instances of BHG being uncivil to both specific editors and groups of editors. Regarding specific editors, I use myself as an example: In discussion with me, BHG said I made 'false' and 'hostile' claims, and I explained that I didn't intend to be hostile and [432]. They subsequently accused me of a serious breach of conduct, citing the specific wording I had apologised for [433], and refused to retract the accusation after I noted that this felt over the line given I had apologised. Not only that, they continued to attack me[434] [435]. As well as the refusal to retract the serious accusation, it was also upsetting to be accused of 'ignoring policy' and called 'timewasting and distracting' just because my interpretation of policy differed from theirs. I found it contradictionary that BHG refused to abide by my request that they don't WP:BLUDGEON me any further yet also asked me to stay off her talk page. The effect was that while I did intend to take further part in the discussion, I ended up not doing so because I was fearful of being torn apart by BHG again. Regarding whole classes of editors: in this edit[436], BHG says “Why is this discussion getting so many posts from editors who now absolutely nothing about the relevant policies? Is there some on- or off-wiki canvassing?” This ignores the fact that one of the nominated articles was one of the most popular on Wikipedia at the time, it being still less than a week since the state funeral of Elizabeth II, and it unfairly brings the competence of editors into question before they have even posted. I do wonder how many people were put off from participating because they worried they might be jumped on. I understand that editors can be blunt, that misunderstandings can happen. But there’s a line where bluntness crosses over into uncivility. To quote WP:UNCIVIL, “Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict.” I think there’s been more than enough evidence of BHG having made disrespectful comments and alienated editors (in at least one case, an editor who supported the move.[437]) H. Carver (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's sad to see this at ANI again. There are some misconceptions, mentioned by editors above, that I want to address.

- Incivility is not justified if the other user's argument in a move discussion isn't as good as BHG's.

- Incivility is not justified if BHG is a net positive to the project.

- BHG is well aware of the civility policy, more than almost any other active editor, from years of ANI discussions and an ArbCom case about this. She has evidently not adjusted her behavior to fit within the civility policy.

- The idea that a block needs to be preventing some sort of "urgent" disruption is incorrect, when we are discussing a well-informed user with years of difficulties regulating their conduct, including clear consensus in previous ANI threads and an ArbCom case for those threads to have been the final warning.

This continuation of battleground-style uncivil behavior is very concerning, including her description of another editor as "jesuitical", which is reminiscent of her use of the term "portalistas" (derived from Sandinistas) from a few years ago. I hope this can be finally resolved soon. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vermont: With respect to the term "jesuitical", BHG seems to be characterizing a particular claim made in an argument Your claim... seems to be at best jesuitical, rather than describing a particular editor as such. And the use of the word "Jesuitical" to describe arguments that engage in equivocation is a well-established use of the term; this isn't an instance in which a user has created their own term as in the case of "portalistas".

Additionally the notion that "portalistas" must be somehow derived from Sandinistas strikes me a bit odd as a Spanish speaker; there are of course the Peronistas (who predate the Sandinistas by several decades) and other political groups, but the "-ista(s)" suffix is also extremely commonplace with words that describe professions, such as periodistas, futbolistas, and artistas. Why do you explicitly point to the Sandinistas as the group that BHG is unambiguously alluding to in coining that phrase; is there a diff that suggests that this was her intent, or was this mere guesswork? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably because the "-ista" form was not very widely used in English, and the first time it came into popular cognizance was with "Sandanista". One rarely heard the "ista" form before that (if ever), and terms such as "fashionista" all come into popular use only after it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Barista Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary wikt:-ista notes the etymology is from Sandanista and also that Words formed using this suffix usually have more of a pejorative connotation than related words formed using -ist. Historically, this connotation tended to be associated with socialism (in reference to Sandinistas), but may also connote a general connection to Latin America or apolitical pejorativeness. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. González 1995 explains that the -ista suffix is actually derived from Ancient Greek istes, and is not necessarily associated with the left specifically, such as the use of franquista in relation to Francoist Spain. The paper describes the negative connotation being stronger depending on the personal association attached to the word, i.e. a fidelesta (Fidel Castro) is going to have much more negative connotations than something such as barista. Apolitical terms with the istas suffix aren't generally considered negative. X-750 _{List of articles I have screwed over} 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My goal when closing that requested move was to stop further escalation of drama, and I regret that I failed. It was a mistake on my part to use the exception I found as policy justification for my close. The paragraph below that about the community's de facto naming convention was sufficient rationale, and I shouldn't have piled the exception on top of that, which BHG characterized as "intellectual bullying" "jesuitical". Sorry. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

[edit] I think I mixed up terms. wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• This probably doesn't need to be said at this point, but for the record: this whole saga started when UtherSRG observed this nasty personal attack by BHG against Bearcat (among a large number of less glaring ones) following his re-opening of the RM. He asked me for my thoughts, and I told him that although it was a violation, he shouldn't block her himself because he was involved and should instead raise the issue elsewhere. (I had suggested ANI; he instead asked another admin, which IMO was also appropriate.) wbm1058 said he would overlook the incivility if she calmed down once the discussion was closed, and UtherSRG expressed contentment with that; I'm not sure how BHG construed this as an attempt by UtherSRG to punish her for challenging him on the merits of his closure. It strikes me as paranoid, which I find concerning. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I did not overlook the incivility, though I did perceive that some would not see it, which, from some of the comments above, was a correct perception. I did warn threaten her regarding incivility, which I regret. Had I not done that, we might not be here, and drama would have been avoided. That was my goal. She has already been warned; no further warning is necessary nor helpful. I've yet to block an extended-confirmed editor, but this experience has given me more confidence to expand my administrative skill-set and competence into that area. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058: By "overlook," I meant not block her as called for by her sanction. A warning was generous as it was; refusing to do even that much would have been neglectful of the community's clear desire that her civility failures be firmly and consistently addressed. BHG's vicious reaction to that was neither appropriate nor warranted and underscores why she needed to be sanctioned. Honestly, I think you handled it as best you could have, but if you regret anything, it should be for not having blocked her to begin with, not for having called out her inappropriate behavior (though FWIW, it might also have helped to mention the personal attacks and not just the bludgeoning). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: that allegation of paranoia is unfounded.

  I had no contact with UtherSRG after they had completed their revert of their close of the RM. The next I saw from them were post on Wbm1058's talk, which mentioned no other issues. So far as I was aware, this went directly from mutual-agreed reversion of the closure to complaint.

  If there was some other factor involved, then UtherSRG should have disclosed that when they approached Wbm1058, and disclosed it to me notified me that they were seeking sanctions. However, UtherSRG chose to operate without transparency and without notification, so I formed a judgement on the info available to me. I stand by that judgement as a reasonable assessment of the info available. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl is doing an amazing job at keeping Wikipedia afloat. She's basically singlehandly handling the reduction of the backlog of bare refs. Without her work and expertise, its highly likely the bare refs will never reduce. I agree with BD2412 in saying this doesn't not merit an ANI dicussion, rather a talk page discussion over what did and din't happen, and how anything bad that could have happened can be prevented from happening again. Lets push the breaks. Rlink2 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Doing an amazing job does not excuse incivility. I've lost count of the number of editors I've seen described as indispensable in some way over the years who left (for whatever reason) and turned out not to be indispensable after all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  The wiki could technically go on without anyone, and BHG has even stated this fact a while ago. Using the football analogy, The Patriots without Tom Brady are still a team, aren't they? But they are a different team. This is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point.

  Doing an amazing job does not excuse incivility I 100% agree. What I am trying to say is that the conflict should be able to be resolved amicably on their talk pages. It is important that each side is heard and understood. Nothing creates distrust and incivility faster than misunderstandings and a refusal to consider another viewpoint. A side adopting a WP:IDHT mindset is only bound to cause problems. Rlink2 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  This entire thing would have been avoided if BHG hadn't bludgeoned the RM and attacked Bearcat. I don't know why you think that this matter could have been resolved amicably at a talk page. I doubt if I have ever felt less heard than on those occasions when I tried to discuss a disagreement with BHG. Nobody is denying that BHG does a great deal of invaluable work, but she went way overboard here. There's no need to minimize it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: that's claim that I attacked Bearcat is a good example of the sort of conduct that I find very troubling on Wikipedia. Not just personally unsettling, but very troubling for our ability to have the rigorous, critical debates needed to build an encyclopedia.

  Bearcat asserted (and emphasised as an always-true fact) something which it took me about 20 minutes to prove was very definitely not always true. Bearcat claimed that state funerals always contained a unique feature, the lying in state; but in 20 minutes, I found numerous exceptions to that claim: lots of lying-in-state without a state funeral, and lots of state funerals without a lying-in-state.

  I dunno why Bearcat did that. Did Bearcat knowingly assert a falsehood? Did he assume without checking? Did he not care? I can't possibly know his state of mind, but I can say with absolute certainty than a competent editor of an encyclopdia would have made through checks before making such an absolute assertion ... and Bearcat clearly did not do those checks.

  Having been falsely accused by Bearcat of misconduct, I was annoyed. I was very much more annoyed to have to spend 20 minutes of my time deconstructing a completely bogus claim by an admin, and I expressed that annoyance because I have experienced the same problem many times before with Bearcat.

  So far as I can see from the discussion here, there is absolutely no community concern that the admin Bearcat made false allegations of misconduct against me, and no community concern that the admin Bearcat tried to sway a consensus-forming discussions by making assertions of fact which they stressed were always true, but are in fact false. And AFAICS there is absolutely no community concern that the admin Bearcat made no effort to withdraw or apologise for those bogus assertions.

  How on earth can we build an encyclopedia when a disregard for truth is not seen as any problem at all, but a harsh exposure of untruth is so unacceptable that a mob descends on the exposer of the untruth?

  Yet again, Wikipedia's core purpose is being placed as a very weak second to the desire of some parts of the editor base to make an absolute priority out of not risking any possible offence or hurt to editors or admins who blatantly fail to strive for the scholarly rigour which an encyclopedia demands. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's 388 words, spread out across 7 paragraphs, in response to two words from my comment. Rlink2, this is exactly why a talk page discussion would have been fruitless. BHG, I'm not going to debate this with you. I'm just going to point out that all of this drama over the word 'state' in the title of articles about state funerals is one of the most pointless dramafests I have ever seen on this site. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: your comment is a good illustration of the problem with these discussions.

  You make a criticism of me in two words. Inevitably, my reply takes a lot more than two words. But instead of thanking me for taking the time to respond, and without showing any sign at all that you have even read my reply, you dismiss it as too long and refuse to engage.

  I cannot know your intent, but the effect of this approach amounts to a form of baiting, in which the fact that I make any attempt to defend my actions is simply taken as further evidence of guilt.

  If you are not wiling to debate this, why are you posting here? And if all this drama troubles you, which are you engaging in it and stoking it?

  For the record, I actually agree that the issue in dispute is trivial. What is not trivial, to my mind, is the apparent inability of most of the editors who !voted in that RM to apply long-standing and stable policy to a simple issue, and the community's lack of concern that the admin Bearcat tried to sway consensus by false assertions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no need for you to defend yourself. There is no reason for me to debate you. You did, in fact, attack Bearcat. The comment has been quoted below for anyone who wants to read it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wow! There is no need for you to defend yourself. Just wow.

  That is the logic of the Stalinist show trials described so vividly by Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago. In the trials, guilt was not open to dispute or question. The role of the defence team was to assist the state in uncovering the full extent of the criminality of the accused.

  Naively, I thought that approach had been terminated with the end of Stalinism.

  Instead, it seems to be alive and well here o Wikipedia, where the fact of being accused is sufficient evidence of guilt, and making a case for one's defence is evidence of aggravated guilt. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. My point was that there is no need to defend yourself against valid criticism. In this particular case, my two-word description of your conduct was accurate. You may not agree, but I suspect that most neutral third-parties would characterize your comment as a personal attack. Again, I am not going to debate that description with you because I know it would be a fruitless endeavor, as evidenced by the fact that you are already giving my words a meaning that they never had.

  To be clear, I am not advocating for a system that denies you the ability to make a defense. If you had read my words carefully instead of jumping to the most unfavorable interpretation possible, you would have seen that I never said you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. My point is simply that it would be better to take valid criticism to heart instead of trying to rebut it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  You should go write op-eds, BHG. The needless hyperbole and whining would be great there, but here it just shows you treat everything as a battle to be won and have little interest in working collaboratively. If you just stuck to your usual practice of tagging articles with 500 references with giant maintenance tags because they contain one bare URL pdf, you wouldn't be getting so much criticism. But you can't help yourself, you have to attack everyone who doesn't agree with you on everything. Everyone has to be out to get you, it always has to be a giant conspiracy, and everyone who dares disagree with you must be subjected to giant indignant rants about how they have wronged you and they're literally Hitler/Stalin/insert other dictator here. There's no defense to be made because you objectively made multiple personal attacks. That you see nothing wrong with your actions shows you should have been blocked indefinitely, not just for 12 hours. You are a net negative every time you interact with others because you're incapable of not being rude and making personal attacks. You whine about civility when you're one of the worst offenders when it comes to violating civility. You always argue in bad faith, cherry pick things out of context, and refuse to accept any criticism in favor of an "attack the attacker" strategy. This behavior led to your desysop, led to your current restrictions, and will lead to your downfall. The community is finally getting fed up with your antics, and I foresee a community ban in your near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  You wrote, and I quote: Bearcat prefers to make rigid, no-exception assertions, with bolding and italicisation, and reacts with indignant hostility to evidence which disproves his neat absolutes. I expect another round of angry indignation for daring to demonstrate the falsity of yet more of Bearcat's unresearched absolutes. Do you truly not understand why we’re calling that a personal attack? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: I do understand that if someone places a low value on the fact of an admin attacking me and asserting falsehoods both about my conduct and about the matter under discussion, then they may choose to take my reply out of context and treat it as attack rather than as a response to a attack.

  I find it very troubling that someone would take my words out of context. That is not a civil way to respond to another editor. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Unblock request

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.

---

BrownHairedGirl has appealed their 12 hour block, but due to the community placed restriction the block is only over-turnable on community consensus. As such copying to here.

This kompletely Kafkaesque.
Tamzin's comment[438] at ANI "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil makes it clear that she is punishing me for describing the bad actions of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's right for the community to be able to comment on this, but personally I would oppose any unblock. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Considering that the block will automatically expire in a few hours (making an unblock request moot) and that my assessment is that this is relatively WP:SNOW, might I suggest this be closed before the block expires? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  If extending the block is on the table, then please leave this open. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I fully agree with Tamzin's block here, and similarly to Dreamy Jazz oppose an unblock at this time. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I will respond briefly to say what I hope should be obvious: The block was for the way in which the criticisms were made, not for the fact of having spoken critically. (I express no opinion on the merits of those criticisms.) Criticism is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for incivility—and at the same time, incivility is not an integral part of criticism. BHG could have leveled the exact same criticisms without saying anything uncivil. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I was involved in the state funerals discussion and subject to her bludgeoning in that discussion. She’s been uncivil to several editors in that discussion, myself included, and also two admins who closed that discussion one of whom she is arguing the toss with as we speak under the ban discussion on her talk page. Do I think she’ll learn after a ban of just 12 hours? Sadly not. Do I think the ban was justified? Absolutely! Davethorp (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - BHG was not blocked for making criticisms, but for the uncivil language used while doing so. firefly ( t · c ) 15:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. BHG's descriptions "nasty" and "sneaky" are both familiar to those of us who were frequent participants in the scores of MfDs during the great portal purge. In edit summary, here is an example comment using "sneaky" repeated dozens of times when reverting edits by one admin who was trying to improve the portals prior to any potential MfD. I have learned since then to appreciate BHG for her industry and competence, but I wish she could refrain from undue characterization of others' actions. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I appreciate all the work she puts into the project, she needs to come to terms that the manner in which she engages with other editors is, at times, too acerbic. The bludgeoning of the RM discussion was also not helpful. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A potentially constructive editor in need of a time out, from my observations and looking at this thread. No need to pause restrictions yet again in case of 'Boy cries wolf' doktorb _words^deeds 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - BHG has certainly contributed to the project, but her incivility towards other editors cannot be ignored at this point. While I personally hope she can return at a later point and contribute more civilly, I'm concerned that a premature unblock would just make the problem worse. Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously -- the block was exceptionally well-founded, and similar comments from BHG should be policed aggressively going forward. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. Solid block. It's time for BHG to learn to engage with others without casting aspersions. ArbcomThe community didn't put down a civility restriction for no reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Accidentally attributed the civility restriction to arbcom; it was ANI. My bad. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Her latest talk page post indicates that she clearly does not understand why she was blocked. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose BHG repeatedly mistakes indignant vehemence for persuasiveness. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose incredibly strongly. Linked in Giraffer's comment above, her latest comment is a continuation of her years-long claim that being right in a policy discussion entitles her to be uncivil. This is embodied in her argument that this is some sort of victimization campaign...there would be no problem whatsoever if she raised concerns about the admin's closes, if those concerns were written in a civil manner. It's not hard: just stop insulting people, and there will never be an ANI thread ever again. Unfortunately, there is zero indication whatsoever that this pattern of abuse will stop, and strong indication that it will continue. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose good to see the community realizing all should comply with civility restrictions. Moxy- 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Noting for awareness that I have revoked talk page access following an extensive diatribe that, in my opinion, constituted inappropriate use of a talk page as activity not substantially related to her unblock request. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, endorse block, endorse revocation of talk-page access. Two previous incivility blocks were quickly reverted; I trust we're not going to see that again here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Not likely. There are specific conditions for being unblocked on BHG's editing restrictions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Justlettersandnumbers Assuming that's the wrong link? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Duh, indeed it most certainly is, thanks, Indagate. Her block log is here. Blocks on 17 November 2019 and 9 August 2021 were fairly promptly reversed, no comment on whether those reversals were right or wrong, but sure that a similar overturn would be mistaken this time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Legitimate block in line with previous behaviour. Although it does beg the question, BHG has made it very very clear from their rants (both pre and post block) they are not going to comply with the current restrictions in the long run. So what's the plus side in unblocking at all just to run through the motions of escalating blocks? This seems like the prime point to keep the block in place until they agree to comply. Does the existing sanction mean they are effectively immune from any indefinite incivility block until it runs its course? That seems like process for the sake of process, with some future random editors in the firing line until its worked through. Granted if BHG had kept their mouth shut it could at least be argued they might change, but does anyone reading their recent comments think thats going to happen? Similar to the JPL issue at AN, if we know the problem *is* going to re-occur, dont we have greater obligation to prevent it, rather than letting it happen and punishing afterwards? Thats not really going to sound very community-minded to the editors who end up in BHG's sights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Seriously, appealing a twelve-hour block? Talk about frivolous. Given that she's doubling down instead of cooling off, she probably needs a longer one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Firefly. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose If anything her response further proves the block was necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The block should be extended until such time that her TPA has been restored and she commits to adhering to her Civility restrictions. Otherwise this isn’t going to end. The nature of these blocks are preventative. She’s shown no willingness to improve her behavior. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:DC6A:5060:1AA7:D5B5 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. And I would support extending it until BHG shows some understanding of why her behaviour was unacceptable too. The restriction only allows the first block to be 12 hours, but any admin would have my support for imposing a normal block after this one expires. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Transphobia from User:Athaenara on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato

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.

---

• ArbCom case open. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Athaenara LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So, Athaenara decided to oppose Isabelle Belato's adminship in the worst way possible. As a trans woman myself, this blatant WP:NPA violation shouldn't fly under the radar, much less from an administrator. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So an admin opposes, doesn't care, then posts? Clearly No personal attacks violation. But why from an admin? Sarrail (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You have a lot of company on wondering why. There's nothing that would even suggest that would happen. I don't get it either. We've dealt with issues for years with WP:BITE, and while the nominee is certainly not a newbie in anyway, this is definitely a fantastic way to drive away editors. The irony is their user page has the "This project is here to build an encyclopedia. Please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." That's pretty good at violating that process to the goal. Really disgusting behavior. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That's definitely not okay. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty egregious breach of WP:NPA and WP:ADMINCOND. I hope Athaenara has one hell of an apology ready, or that this is a compromised account issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I intend to block indefinitely for hate speech. If someone objects, they better explain why really, really soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Quick query, while I support the action, can't admins just unblock themselves? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  If memory serves, admins can only block the person who blocked them (intended for stopping a compromised account) while blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  No. The most they can do is block the person who blocked them. Change happened a couple years ago after the rash of admin compromises. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Barkeep and GN. Tried to clarify that question to "policy aside can't admins..." but kept getting edit conflicts. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  (This may be obvious by now, but your question was correctly interpreted and answered in the desired technical way, so no worries about that.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear this isn't a policy thing (which was already true per arbcom rulings), this is built into mediawiki. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam I'm going to do Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship at ARBCOM EvergreenFir (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Those aren't mutually exclusive. An indef could be lifted rather quickly under policy but an examination of the admin privileges could still be called for. If I were not INOLVED, I'd be inclined to trigger a WP:LEVEL2. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  As someone who once had his admin privileges removed on emergency due to self-harm, it is the right thing to go to ArbCom to make sure it's all in writing. But Athenaera basically dug their own grave. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I can't figure out the proper forum for this request... is it enforcement? A new case? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir I would launch it as a new request at WP:ARC. Obviously I am speaking only as an editor familiar with arbitration procedures because, as noted in my last reply, I am clearly INVOLVED and thus will need to recuse on any formal decision by the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'm working on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I totally agree with indeffing Athaenara, but considering the user is an administrator, we might have to get some bureaucrat involvement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Athenaera...what the hell? I recognize that what you said is a personal belief (heck, one that I held once upon a time, so I think I understand better than most) and nobody here is going to talk you out of it. Directing a comment like that at anybody, however, is grossly inappropriate and conduct unbecoming an administrator. Nobody forced you to show up to RfA and vote, your actions undermine your cause, and your choice of forum just made you look petty. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked Athaenara for "hate speech or compromised account". Assuming Athaenara is not an idiot, she must have known what was coming, so I'm assuming/hoping/rooting for compromised account. The question of a desysop is apparently going to show up at ArbCom soon, although it might be good if a Checkuser investigated whether this was a compromised account first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's a couple of CUs in this discussion already. Given the circumstances, could one of you do a check to confirm if this is or is not a compromised account? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Technical data does not suggest compromise, and that is a check that I was very uncomfortable making. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing the check, and I'm sorry that you were put in the position of having to do it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• posted. Sarrail (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Arbcom case request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Desysop_of_Athaenara EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I find this episode bewildering. I don't know Athaenara either, but they have never crossed my radar in a negative way. As there is no "male" or "female" representation in adminship, the objection is just bizarre, attacking an adminship candidate for a characteristic that has literally nothing to do with adminship. That said, I don't know that an indef block is warranted. This is potentially a teachable moment. BD2412 T 01:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

With respect, if you don't, you are asking for more transphobia and what does that tell anyone who is trans on this site? I've had gender dysphoria issues myself. A teachable moment is an indef because it means we have no tolerance for that kind of baloney. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So just because they disagree with an indef automatically means they're "asking for more transphobia"? This was 1 comment made by a 16 year veteran editor an admin. 1 comment--a mistake--shouldn't ruin this person's run on Wikipedia. Although it absolutely should not have been made, respectfully, I'm going to vehemently disagree with you. It isn't prudent for anyone to make assumptions on others' beliefs. I'm not convinced the account wasn't compromised to be honest. Even if CheckUser supports the contrary, I'm skeptical. It's too weird. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You in this case can represent everyone. What does it say to other editors if we're going to let raging transphobia slide? Why would any trans person feel they are safe? Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 02:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If this were a repeated pattern of conduct, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. If there were efforts to compromise with the editor and essentially request they cease and desist and those efforts failed, I would again agree with you. Hell, even with vandals that post the most insane, disgusting, and flagrant things on articles, we give them warnings--2, 3, sometimes even more--before initiating a block. And blocks in those cases oftentimes aren't even permanent. They're like 31 hours. And the editor can come back in 48 hours with no issues. I am in favor of chances. As a person who's made mistakes so many times in life and even hurt family by hurting myself, I was met with love and allowed to dust myself off and start anew. I think you or I would want that courtesy extended to us. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has proven that it's not an isolated incident. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

She's done it more than once and honestly, we let it slide, what is there to stop her from doing this on every single one like that a la Kurt Weber and "prima facie evidence of power hunger"? We need to nip this in the bud now.Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 02:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So finding out that it is not a compromised account and not the first time this has happened, desysopping is most likely needed, as per the ARBCOM request. Sarrail (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat beyond a mistake. It was an egregious personal attack on another editor. It fell far short of our policies on WP:NPA and WP:ADMINCOND, and the new Universal Code of Conduct. Were Athaenara to hold those views purely in her personal life that would be one thing, but expressing them on Wikipedia and directing that expression against another editor is not acceptable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a longstanding philosophy of warn-then-block, which applies to personal attacks as it does to anything else. I agree with a speedy desyssop here, and with a block until that process is resolved (and perhaps for some additional length of time), but I feel like we're missing a step if we go straight to an indef-block without some intermediate opportunity for rehabilitation. BD2412 T 02:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hate speech purposely directed at somebody should result in an indef. And I have nothing but the fondest memories of Athaenara over the last decade plus, but this drops my jaw. I can even understand feeling that way, I can even understand publicly expressing the view as a belief, but directing it at somebody is hateful and hurtful and intentionally so. nableezy - 02:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We warn to make sure people understand something is against policy. Athaenara made it extremely clear that she knew it was against policy when she said it. No warning was necessary, any more than we warn obvious vandalism-only accounts. And this wasn't a run of the mill "you're stupid" personal attack, nor even (beating someone to the punch) an isolated "fuck you". It was a hate-filled attack on a fundamental part of another human being, equivalent to misogyny or racism. She doesn't get one free shot. And she knew it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been my stance as well. If we're going to warn even in cases of the most egregious of vandalism/defamation/inappropriate behavior, which we do all the time, this case shouldn't be any more special. We are about fostering understanding here. A rash judgement like this doesn't reflect well at all on Wikipedia or on its editors. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, allowing an administrator who is openly transphobic to continue spewing vitriol would reflect much more poorly than a “rash” block. It’s indefinite, not permanent. I hope she can learn and grow as so many of us have regarding this topic, but the trust needed to be an admin has been obliterated. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:6DC9:660D:A031:FF35 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to uphold the policies and pillars of Wikipedia and lead by example. Voicing blatant transphobia against another user is definitely grounds for desysopping. Quoting LilianaUWU: I don't feel safe having an administrator so openly pushing transphobic views such as this one. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 03:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Except we don't do that. I have made plenty of zero-warning blocks for everything you mentioned, as have many other admins. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I had a user once literally attack me, calling me a barrage of names, swearing at me, and reverting my edits needlessly. You couldn't get more personalized than that. They received multiple warnings on the same day afterwards and were subsequently temp blocked for a few months. So, yes, we do do that. Admins have done it before and certainly done what you say before. It's not uniform. But that's neither here nor there, I guess. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 03:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Admins are help to a higher standard of conduct than others. I'm not sure I agree with the indef, but desysop seems warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR or other minute dispute. This is blatant transphobia that violates every policy on this site. I'm a raging socialist, but if I said some the views I have on the site, I'd expect to be banned too. Sometimes we have to just to use IAR and discuss it later. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 02:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If this isn't a compromised account, then they can do their learning from inside an unblock template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam It’s challenging to believe the account hasn’t been compromised. Such a bizarre conduct all of the sudden. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: The conduct wasn't so sudden. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This kind of administrator self-destruction makes me ineffably sad. I happen to be a 70 year old thoroughly straight (cis) white male. I also happen to have met a trangender person way back in 1969, when I was only 17 years old. That person described the contempt and the hate and the intense discrimination they faced every single day, in quite poignant terms. I responded with compassion and will never forget that interaction 53 years ago. I find it difficult to understand the reasoning or the moral posture of those who respond with utter contempt for transgender people. Their cruel detetmination to torment them bewilders me. As for the notion that a warning is required first, there is no such requirement. Editors who engage in overt hate speech are routinely blocked without advance warning. I do it all the time. though not often for long time editors. Like I said, the situation is so sad that it is hard to select the proper words to describe it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should have been warned before the block—they have been blocked—but that making that an indef-block should require a more dialectic approach. That said, the editor's response to their block on their talk page is not promising. BD2412 T 06:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"This kind of administrator self-destruction makes me ineffably sad." This sums up 90% of this affair. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Good block. Hate is disruptive. A warning would be pointless busywork since it is blatantly obvious from the comment itself (Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.) that Athaenara knew that what she said was unacceptable. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Good block. A good friend of mine is a trans woman and while I refuse to reveal things that we have discussed in private, I want to tell Athaenara that I found their comments crass and highly offensive. In terms of policy violations, WP:WIAPA tells us "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on ... gender identity, ... directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a ... gender identity ... is not a legitimate excuse." while WP:ADMINCOND says "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility ... is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools." I would have been prepared to unblock Athaenara had they posted an apologetic unblock request explaining what they did was wrong and how an egregious personal attack from an administrator is completely unacceptable - but they didn't. If this was in an unblock request, I would decline it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I think Athaenara was the first person I looked up to as a role-model on this site when I was starting out. I really want to just throw my hands up and say "But of course this is a compromised account, why would it be her, she's one of the kindest people on this site". But both the CheckUser evidence and the past instances of transphobia indicate that this is very likely not a compromised account. Like damn it, why would she throw it all away for no reason after 15 years just like that. I don't get it. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Good block/desysop: I would have expected such an edit from a banned editor like Zhoban, but a career administrator? We are entitled to personal beliefs and many of them may be incongruent with societal norms, which is why we keep them private. It just so happens that not only does this administrator have a very incongruent one, but they are harming others and wielding it as a battle standard. Unless we find out this is a compromised account, (which Floquenbeam's research is indicating it isn't), this is a chapter that needs to come to a grinding halt. BOTTO _(T•C) 13:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you Floquenbeam for the prompt action in blocking this account. I suggest this thread be closed, now that there is an ArbCom case request in process. A prompt desysop is the logical next step, and we cannot do that here at AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Apologies if it's out of my place to ask (smells like the ban was justified and things are running on the correct course already), but what did Athaenara write? The comment has been revdel'd, so I can't see it. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Read EvergreenFir's statement at the case request. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The comment is on the ARBCOM decision. Sarrail (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see... Yikes. Endwise (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  With all the comments and user's opinions expressed... yes, definitely yikes. Sarrail (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• What's most baffling to me is not so much the opinion expressed, but the people coming to Athaenara's defense on her talk page. There is nothing to defend about that remark.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

I don't mean to restart the discussion here, but I do want to point out that it appears ArbCom was punting a bit to here at AN/I, and now we're closing the above thread and punting it to ArbCom. At the RFAR, WTT says "We cannot leave an admin remain blocked indefinitely. - so if the community agrees the block should remain in place, we should remove the admin bit procedurally. I don't think we've decided in the above that the block should remain in place, but rather that the block was good. This strikes me as a need to consider a community ban, which (if it achieves consensus) would then lead to a desysop by ArbCom on procedural grounds. Those who might feel that going from zero to community ban seems extreme should consider that Floq found evidence of the same stance back in 2019. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest we not have a c-ban discussion now. Athaenara has not requested an unblock. While I cannot imagine anything she could say that would prevent a desysop, I can imagine something she could say that would result in an unblock. My personal suggestion, for whatever that is worth, is to leave this closed (it is no longer going to provide ArbCom with new information), ArbCom votes on a desysop by motion, and we address any possible unblock (or possible c-ban) when and if Athaenara requests an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand the irony of ANI and ARC pointing towards each other, but only ArbCom has the option to decide between a ban and a desysop. All we can do at ANI at this point is community banning or not community banning. That's not the discussion we should be having, so the closure is fine. It's now ArbCom's task to perform a desysop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That might be imprecise. The community does have the power to ban someone, per WP:CBAN. If such a CBAN were put in place, ArbCom very likely would act to desysop the person if requested. A CBAN doesn't have much weight without it. (Note: I'm not suggesting a CBAN or not, nor am I suggesting I would support or oppose a cban) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: May we reopen this discussion for the aforementioned reason outlined by ArbCom? BOTTO _(T•C) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I would softly oppose this action. The discussion was closed at a time I was typing out a request to close specifically because the discussion had ceased constructive progression. There were no pushes for a CBAN, and the discussion had mostly reduced to finger wagging and repeating sentiments of 'Their behavior is unacceptable' in so many words. Without anyone in mind, it began to feel like gravedancing on a still living person, if that makes any sense. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I'm not entirely understanding how you figure that the community [hasn't] decided in the above that the block should remain in place. Block ≠ Ban, so I would not interpret your quoting of Arbcom as probing for a community ban. EDIT: I believe they merely wanted to not have one plate spinning on two poles, and wanted to ensure that ANI wouldn't swing back around mid-arbitration. There was a strong consensus that the block was good, and unless I missed something I saw NO calls for an unblock. While I know it would be a fallacy to state that this automatically means the consensus is the block should stay, I do think that given the severity of the incident (and reactions) that most people wouldn't consider explicitly staying the block should stay, especially given the lack of calls to remove it. If I am missing something please elaborate and/or trout me as necessary. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling a block a good block is one thing. Affirming it as indefinite would be equivalent to a CBAN. That hasn't happened. It's not a ban...yet. There is a big difference. Right now, the block was done by one admin. That can be undone a lot easier than a CBAN could be undone. I think we need to be clear on that, and ArbCom needs to act with that in mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Transphobic attack (not the high-profile case everyone is talking about)

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.

---

Centrum99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This screed against "wacko commies" by Centrum99 was quickly and properly reverted by LokiTheLiar. Centrum99 responded by posting on Loki's talk page: My note to the leftist wackos from English-speaking countries disappeared within a single minute! How many genders do you have? And what is your favourite drug? The bits about wackos and drugs are just boilerplate personal attacks, but the part about multiple genders is beyond the pale, as the current case before ArbCom makes clear. This kind of attack is certainly unacceptable at RfA, and I'd argue it's equally unacceptable here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My thanks to Cullen328 for taking care of this immediately. Nothing more to see here. Cheers all, Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have indefinitely blocked this editor for the worst type of personal attacks, plus they are writing racist screeds. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

They sure were. I didn't mention the racism angle because in my experience folks can get away with that sort of comment here. Even if they're demonstrably wrong on the facts, we typically give people a lot of latitude to express what they claim are legitimately held beliefs about science, even discredited racial science. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Unnecessary rudeness by DrKay

• I made a change to one of the lead sentences in Charles III (diff). (history of page). Shortly afterwards, another user, S C Cheese came along and made three edits to other parts of the lead, introducing some mild grammatical errors. (diff for the last of these).
• DrKay, who edits Charles III regularly, decided to revert these edits with the edit summary "ce". His edit also swept up and reverted my grammatically sound change; I believe this was entirely unintentional, but they haven't confirmed that so I can't say for sure. (diff).
• I got the notification that someone had reverted one of my edits, and on seeing the 'ce' edit summary, was confused, since a reversion of my change was not a type of copyediting. I therefore reverted DrKay's edit back, with the edit summary "If you're going to revert please say why, a revert is not a copyedit." This also unintentionally re-introduced the grammatical errors; at the time I had no idea (diff). Whereupon DrKay reverted the whole thing again, removing both the grammatical errors and my original change. (diff).
• At this point the mistake we had each made (including too much material in a revert) could have been easily resolved, but instead DrKay decided to come to my talk page and be rude to me, writing "Learn English: Are you really so ignorant that you think changing 'in 1958' to 'on 1958' is an improvement? Learn English before trying to 'improve' it.." (diff) (talk page link).

The reversion mixup has now been fixed, but DrKay has neither acknowledged that they made an error to start the whole mess, nor apologized or retracted their rudeness. This is poor behavior from an admin, to make a mistake and then personally attack an editor affected by it. Even if I had been the editor who actually introduced the grammatical errors, this would have been an uncivil overreaction from DrKay. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that DrKay's edits make the article better, and the patronising comment left on Ganesha811's talk page is not acceptable conduct from an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So are they going to be warned? Badgering someone and telling them to "learn English" is what's ignorant. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response from DrKay first before doing anything else. I do note they were reported for incivility about a year ago and mildly admonished, although the other party behaved far worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I have read this report and having considered it, find the opening comment fair and accurate. I am less impressed by the subsequent comments, which appear more inciteful than insightful. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I am less than impressed with this response. — Czello 19:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Well, there's your response. Womp womp. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"I am less impressed by the subsequent comments, which appear more inciteful than insightful." I don't understand what is meant by this. All I mean to say is when you revert someone, don't personally attack them over it, even if you're right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't read to me as an apology. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That's because it's not. At best, it's an acknowledgement that I was correct to say they didn't mean to revert my original edit but instead accidentally picked it up while reverting S C Cheese's grammatical error. But even that is not obvious. DrKay also states in their edit summary that "it is very difficult for me to edit this page | my computer has already crashed twice in an attempt to do so, therefore further commentary from me [at least at this page] is unlikely." That's understandable (this page is currently huge), so let me just say that if DrKay simply struck out and/or removed their rudeness on my talk page, I would regard it as an apology and we could all move on to bigger and better things. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd also consider that a satisfactory resolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: DrKay has now struck out the comment on my talk page, so I think unless the community has something else useful to add, I regard this issue as settled. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

While he did strike out the comment, which was the proper thing to do, I still think there should be some type of documented warning about this before it is officially closed. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 21:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This ANI thread in the archives is enough warning/evidence, should any similar instance occur in the future. GiantSnowman 21:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, DrKay's comment was accompanied by the following edit summary: it is very difficult for me to edit this page | my computer has already crashed twice in an attempt to do so, therefore further commentary from me [at least at this page] is unlikely -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple problems at Kim Waltrip

Article is vanity spam, replete with copyright violations tagged in March but never resolved. Additionally, Kimwaltrip (talk · contribs) has been the primary editor for a decade. Requesting user sanctions and either deletion of the article or reverting to an acceptable version, though I couldn't find one. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've reverted the disputed content [439]. Again, more eyes will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it funny how no one noticed that Kim Waltrip was apparently editing his own page for the last 9-10 years. Definitely slipped through the cracks big time, lol. Reported to WP:UAA. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 21:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Her, not his. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

She's been warned on her talk page. The user name doesn't need to change if indeed it is her, but I'll also post a note linking to WP:COIREQ for future edits. I found and added a couple of sources for two somewhat notable films she produced, but don't have time to go through the whole list of films that was just removed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A partial block, to prevent them from editing this and related articles, may be appropriate. At their talk page, her associate claims to be using the account [440]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. Had the male version of "Kim" in my mind for whatever reason. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 00:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what article is in violation? This is very confusing. Kimwaltrip (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

User:80.208.69.192

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 has received 3 warnings including a Final Warning and continued to edit disruptively, Strictly on Mario Kart related pages. I request a temporary ip block on this user, or a login-only block. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Reported them to WP:AIV. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Antisemitic remarks at Talk:Stepan Bandera

Could an uninvolved admin have a look at Talk:Stepan Bandera#Neutrality is broken, article needs rework and see whether remarks of the IP in that section go beyond what we normally consider acceptable on Wikipedia. Courtesy pinging @GizzyCatBella:. I am myself involved. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. IP blocked, feel free to redact as you see fit (I don't want to end up whacking out the formatting or similar). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What the hell is that talk page? I need eye bleach. Antisemitism, racism, a guy denying Bandera's collaboration based on... something, another guy denying his responsibility in the massacres of Jews and Poles, a new account saying the editors who created and edited the page are nazis, an IP saying they're Russians, yet another saying they are Russian shills. It wouldn't be a great loss for humanity if that entire talk page was nuked. Ostalgia (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Five Races Under One Union page vandalism

• User:Karl Krafft
• Made suspect edits on Five Races Under One Union page on October 26 & 27, erased 'Uyghur' in favor of 'Hui' without citation, openly supports CCP, flagrantly politically motivated editing, especially given the other recent pro-CCP genocide-denial-inspired edits that replaced Uyghur with Hui, lack of discernable edit history otherwise may be a sockpuppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake Hammer (talk • contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, Drake Hammer, you have to notify users you report to ANI. I've done so in this edit, but please remember to do so going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Also, are you referring to this series of edits from last year? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the information. And yes, those are the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake Hammer (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
      • So, on a matter of substance the editor appears to be correct with respect to the group represented by the white stripe based on my survey of reliable sources, but if you disagree I'd be more than happy to chat on the article's talk page. Additionally, to echo Cullen328's reply below, I don't think that there is anything akin to an urgent incident going on here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

        I mean you're the Admin here, I'll trust you & CUllen's ruling here, as I told Cullen328. If you're saying that no rules have been violated, and that there's no reason to suspect political motive for the change, then that's that. I sounded the alarm because of the subject of the edits & prior-acts of vandalism related to it in the past, but if the Admins are confident that the edit was made in good faith by Krafft I'll defer to the ruling. Drake Hammer (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Drake Hammer, an editor is not going to be sanctioned for a handful of bold edits made nearly a year ago, nor for their political beliefs. The edits were not vandalism, which is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. If you say an editor may be a sockpuppet, you are expected to provide evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I never suggest removal, but rather I am bringing attention to potential suspicious behavior due to editing patterns consistent with prior politically-motivated vandalism edits revolving around the subject. The fact that the editor in question also has tags openly supporting the CCP and made such an edit, yet appears to have little history edits relevant to subjects outside of pages where conflicts over CCP-related subjects are common, speaks to the possibility of what would constitute a dummy account on other sites. Therefore, I am reporting the account & its related edits to the Admins, so that said edits & account can be reviewed and/or dealt with. I can't say for sure if this is a sockpuppet, but I felt the suspicious behavior in conjunction the political banners mirrored a pattern similar to prior incidents of political vandalism, and therefore warranted a report to the proper authorities of the site (i.e. the Admins). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake Hammer (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • • Drake Hammer, I am an administrator and so I will be a bit more clear: Do not accuse other editors of vandalism without providing persuasive evidence. Do not accuse editors of sockpuppetry without providing convincing evidence. But any experienced editor could tell you the same thing. Personally, I am in complete disagreement with the CCP, but supporters of that party can edit Wikipedia if they comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. The same requirement applies to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

        First of all I would I would like to clarify that I was not attacking your credentials as an administrator, I examined your profile before I made my response and was aware of such. Rather I was trying to detail my rationale & course of action in regards to making the report. I did this because in your first response asserted that I was pushing for removal, when rather I was alerting the admins

        Secondly, I made my report in the vein of reports regarding suspicious editing activity earlier on this very page. If your could explain to me how my report in particular warrants rebuke as opposed to the to the others, & fails to meet the criteria of either 'persuasive' or 'convincing'. I ask because not only are those terms hypersubjective in implication, but because they are vague in direction. I am trying comply with reporting parameters, but as an ASD person I am finding my to reading into your meaning confusing. Are you requesting more links to pages demonstrating offending behavior from the User to make the justification more concrete? If you care to elaborate I will try to comply.

        Thirdly, I never suggested that the 'rules didn't apply to me'? This is the second time you have inferred & then suggested motive ulterior in my purpose of making the report, even after I tried to clarify myself, and this time we are broaching aspersive territory. I fail to understand how this is warranted, especially as once again I am only reporting suspicious behavior, as others on this page have done without rebuke. I have not challenged your authority, I detailed my rationale, and as I said in the earlier am reporting in the vein of similar reports, yet with this barb of yours you seem to taking this discourse into personal combative territory.

        Fourthly, what exactly are you asking of me here? This is the second time in our engagement that you are telling me things not to do, but failing to clarifying what it is that you want me to do. Do you want me to recant my report? If so, why not just say so from the beginning? Better yet, why not just remove my report with a note explaining why it wasn't valid? We could have both spared ourselves the apparent miscommunication & definite distraction.

        Throughout this discourse you have been repetitive, combative & obfuscative regarding what you want from me beyond me making a report that satisfies your parameters for evidence (which again, you did not explain what exactly would be convincing or persuasive), and that I needed to follow the rules, of which none I have broken thus far. None of this has been constructive to outlining how to proceed, and neither would my devolving into retaliatory remarks.

        Therefore, In the spirit of clarification and hopefully averting further miscommunication- Are you asking me to remove the report, and if so how, how specifically was my evidence not warranting of a report regarding suspicious activity, compared to preceding ones? If not, then what are you asking of me, beyond meeting your unspecified (in the vein that you did not elaborate how the evidence would convincing) criteria for a report & reminder to follow the rules of editing? Because if you are not asking me to recant the report, that makes half of our discourse irrelevant to the subject.

        As you are an Admin I will readily comply with a request to remove the report, because counter to your assertion earlier I am trying my best to follow the rules, and was only trying to report activity that may have violated them. I'm not here to suborn said rules or your authority. Drake Hammer (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent IP-range vandalism on page Mitchell Englander

I have seen a pattern of weird removals of sourced material relating to the corruption conviction of politician Mitchell Englander. Every 2 months or so, a new IP in this range: [441] comes around and removes sourced content relating to the corruption conviction of said politician.

Bringing it up here because I'm not sure how to proceed, or what the best action is, given that this behavior is persistent, but the IP is never the same. Edits are only on that page. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Range p-blocked from Mitchell Englander for 6 months. Looks like he was released from federal prison in early Feb. El_C 09:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Athaenara unblocked by Lourdes

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.

---

Although the original block stood, both for the reason given in the block log and by consensus at the above thread, Lourdes has decided to unblock Athaenara without discussion, nor even an explanatory comment. Given how much of a controversial topic this block and the events leading to it are, this absolutely should have called for discussion with the blocking administrator (Floquenbeam) first, as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action. As to not wheel war, I am seeking consensus to reinstate the block. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstating the block. Athaenara's statements were way too harmful for a random admin to unblock without discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - There is consensus above that the block was properly placed. If needed, Athaenera can make statements through their talk page.—*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - Per above. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Lourdes' unblock reason cited:

The case is in Arbcom to assess whether this is hate speech or not.

That does not preclude individual administrators from undertaking such assessments. No rule that I know of bars other admins (and the community) from probing into on-wiki activities of other administrators. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait. The ball is in her court. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The community had a consensus that she should remain blocked. With such statements as calling trans women "males masquerading as females", how is the ball in her court, SmokeyJoe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A user_talk apology perhaps. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstating the block. Also, Lourdes why did you unblock Athaenara? I don't think that was a good idea, and it's concerning given how little you've been editing. @TrangaBellam:, you deleted your comment, but I don't think she's compromised because she has been active in blocking problematic users (although, normally blocking admins leave a message, so I don't really know). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In answer to why Lourdes unblocked her, just in case you missed the edit summary for the unblock: Not compromised account. The case is in Arbcom to assess whether this is hate speech or not. In my opinion, this is absolute hate speech and there is no place like this on Wikipedia or anywhere. At the same time, you need to allow the case to have representation from Ath... Unblocking likewise. — Czello 08:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That reasoning is debatable but, unsurprisingly, Athaenara has immediately restarted general editing elsewhere on the encyclopaedia. — Trey Maturin has spoken 08:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. This is very disappointing... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Very, very bad unblock that could be viewed as an attempt to throw petrol on the fire. Please reverse yourself, Lourdes. — Trey Maturin has spoken 08:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstating the block. It's unacceptable that after a block by community consensus someone is able to just go back to editing as if nothing has happened[442] before the issue at hand is resolved. Mike1901 (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Reinstate. The unblok isn't even being used to participate in the case request (not that it'd be needed for that either) but for normal editing as if nothing happened. Madeline (part of me) 08:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstalling the block. There was a clear consensus for a community based ban in addition to what is happening at Arbcom.Gusfriend (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment -- TheresNoTime has reinstated the block. (Thank you!) --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block — there is already emerging consensus above in the 30+ minutes this thread has been open, and the unblock made a mockery of our due process. Per policy, if anyone feels this is wheel warring, I invite you to open a WP:RFAR — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the right thing to do in view of the overwhelming outpouring of support for the reinstatement of the block. This would not preclude Athaenara from making "representations" to the ArbCom, as they could simply ask others to post their comments at the desired place, thus also addressing Lourdes' concerns at the same time. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstatement of block. Not a good decision to unblock without discussion, in the circumstances. I would also support a permanent community ban. The Land (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Athaenara's comment was vile and I don't want to see her get a second chance, as it was about bigotry and not politics. However, I think Arbcom needs to run its course first. BOTTO _(T•C) 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Its not like they can't be heard at arbcom by email or getting her messages transferred from their talk page. The block only stops the use of admin tools (and general editing). Terasail^[✉️] 10:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support reinstating the block, for which there was clear consensus. The unblock was not in-line with community consensus. However, Athaenara should be allowed talk page and/or email access, to respond to ArbCom. GiantSnowman 10:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Stop. This page is not called votes for blocking. It’s unseemly. ArbCom will deal with the matter. Please don’t start a wheel war. Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Uh, the block was a community decision from this page, which is why the matter came back here. ArbCom will deal with the desysopping question. Having said that, I think this discussion has run its course as the block has, quite rightly, been reinstated. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Blatant anti-Semitism in editor post

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.

---

Masem (talk · contribs) has given us the following polished turd (in the discussion of whether there is "strong sourcing" to support description of Alice Walker as anti-Semitic): The only one I see immediately is the Tablet one, and being that is a Jewish-oriented work, we have to be careful with that. I struggle to fathom how an editor could post such a thing, and I hope it leads to the outcome it deserves. Let's be clear on what is meant: "we have to be careful with that" means that the editor thinks a "Jewish-oriented work" is not a "strong source" in regard to anti-Semitism. I think this is equivalent to: when Jews speak about anti-Semitism it's normal to entertain doubts about whether what they say can be relied on. As I say -- blatant anti-Semitism. BTW (since it is likely to be asked): I have not raised/discussed this topic with the editor before coming here. Why should I? I have no doubt there will be an idiotic rationalisation and I don't have the stomach for it. The situation is perfectly clear as it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are right that the situation is perfectly clear: you have failed to assume good faith, haven't discussed anything with accused editor and jumped right to ANI to earn boomerang for WP:ASPERSIONS. It's obvious that Masem meant something like "Jewish source is more willing to accuse someone of antisemitism", not "they are Jews, disregard their opinion". a!rado (C✙T) 11:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Manufactured outrage from a strained interpretation. Would the drama diggers please step down, the currently quarried seam is quite rich enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether a source is Jewish-oriented or not does not determine whether it’s reliable. Consider: “We should be careful with this book written by a Australian author because it might not be neutral on Australia issues.” Both statements are equally foul. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I almost always concur with Nomos' judgments. Not here. Edit conflicts wiped out a TLDR reasoning (sighs of relief all round). Masem and Tanzim, from above the fray, provided a judicious and cogent overview of the problem raised in that thread. (Reading the whole thread, I tended to assess Nableezy's points more positively. True, I may be biased, but he is a policy geek and a precisian whose arguments struck me to be consistently talked round). The point though is, Masem's phrasing is in wide usage and Google suggests that it is perfectly acceptable in describing any number of magazines and newspapers pitched to a Jewish readership. Even the New York Times has it, to describe The Tablet. It is even used by those magazines themselves.

It is one of the linguistic travails of our time that core arguments over ethnicity, racism, anti-Semitism etc., have become so relentlessly politicized that, while those of us who follow the topics have quite nuanced perceptions that affect what word waves make our sensitive antennae quiver, we find ourselves all too often unwittingly misreading the drifts. Extreme caution, and fine discrimination are always necessary here to avoid reductionist caricature.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"We should be careful with this analysis of the Catholic church's role in WWII because it was written for the Osservatore Romano / this comparison of animal husbandry approaches because it was written for a PETA newsletter / this overview of Eisenhower's career because it was written for a Republican memorandum". There are obviously situations were this kind of caveat is entirely appropriate, and the worst to allege here is that Masem is wrong in assessing this publication to fall in that category. Keep the antisemitism furor for cases where less bad faith is required. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

If the audience for a magazine if mostly Jewish, making the magazine Jewish-oriented, that is orthogonal to the issue of whether the magazine is reliable. PETA as a source is unreliable because PETA is an advocacy organization, not a purveyor of high-quality news. Same with the Republican Party. In contrast, I can use the Wall Street Journal as a reliable source because they do high-quality journalism. That they are also Republican-oriented is beside the point. There are very old antisemitic canards that Jews control the world or Jews control the media. Masem's comment seems to lean into those theories, which is an error, though this may have been unintentional. I'd like to hear what Masem has to say about this. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely not of the opinion that "Jews control the media" and thus the Tablet shouldn't be used for that reason. I am only thinking along the terms of BIASED; a source that is focused on reporting about X can be potentially biased when it comes to reporting on people/groups that are anti-X, and care should be used before including that type of source. Here we're talking X being Jewish culture; I could say the same if we were talking Pink News and X was about LGBTQ culture. As BIASED says, there may be need for attribution and explanation of the source as part of that, and there are other factors related to opinions and sourcing that BLP also demands we be careful about.

I absolutely can see where the confusion comes in, that saying, without further context "The Tablet is Jewish-oriented and we should be careful in its use" could feed into the conspiracy theory related to media control, but I clearly wasn't talking about that, but the application of BIASED to the Tablet. Masem (t) 12:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I accept your explanation, and hope that others will too. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how was this not absolutely obvious all along? Pretty bang on the reason why WP:AGF is a thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well -- there we have it. "Jewish-oriented sources" -- and thus the Jews who produce them -- are potentially biased in regard to anti-Semitism. When others speak about anti-Semitism, no need to worry about bias. Only when it's Jews, specifically in regard to anti-Semitism. Wonderful. What a world. FWIW, "Jewish control of the media" was absolutely not my worry. Rather, my worry was exactly what Masem has confirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, that should not be the conclusion. A better framing would be that some publications mix news and opinion to suit their audience. I've interacted with Masem a lot over the years (and we've disagreed occasionally) but I've never gotten the impression that they were antisemitic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The article in question was indeed an opinion piece, so issues of bias and attribution were definitely relevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity as an outside observer reading through this, this comes across as misrepresenting Masem's explanation and ignoring all of the feedback you're receiving. It's seems like it's pretty clear to everyone that you're just taking it the wrong way and overreacting, to the extent that this is the newest thread on ANI and the discussion is seemingly already over. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think all Masem is saying is that an article from a publication focused on a specific topic (Judaism, in this case) might put more weight on aspects of a topic or controversy that relate to Judaism, which is something that has to be taken into account when gauging due weight. I think it's an argument we have to be skeptical about - if a source with that sort of focus is otherwise neutral and high-quality overall, it can often be the best sort of source to use for detailed coverage and precise nuances. And I don't accept that a source being "about Judaism" automatically renders it biased - bias would come from having a particular perspective on Judaism or Jewish issues, not just a focus on them. But it's not an argument that is problematic in a way that would raise ANI issues. (Also, this is separate from the issues of whether the source is an opinion-piece and whether Tablet is generally biased because it has a strong opinion. But, for example, we wouldn't consider an academic journal devoted to covering Judaism - or climatology or race relations or anything else - to be biased simply because of that focus. If Tablet is biased then it's because it's Tablet and not because it is focused on one particular topic.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Of course one should never exclude a source merely on the basis of being Jewish. But particular sources have particular biases and Tablet is strongly biased towards a right-wing view of the world. There you can find anti-trans, anti-vax and anti-Justice Department rhetoric, and more. The Association for Jewish Studies recently announced that it was withdrawing its advertising revenue from Tablet after repeated complaints from its members. There is a good reason for treating it with caution. Zero^talk 14:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I do realize that, which is why I said that if the Tablet is biased then it's because it's the Tablet, so to speak - because of reasons to believe that they're biased specific to them. But I don't think Masem was saying that they're biased just because they are Jewish (which would be a more serious problem), but that they're biased because they focus on Jewish issues. I think that there are minor WP:WEIGHT concerns for that but for the most part I think even that is wrong, since it would lead to eg. specialist publications being treated as biased simply for having a specialization. In the abstract, a journal about Judaism would generally be a good source for discussing antisemitism; if someone wanted to argue it was biased they'd need a more specific argument than "it is focused on Judaism." --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• It is reasonable to in general be worried that a publication dedicated to X may be more biased in their description of things as anti-X than other publications. If a cycling magazine wrote that something was anti-cyclists I would be more wary of stating their claim in Wikipedia's voice than if the NYT wrote it. Just as if a Christian magazine wrote that something was anti-Christian I'd be more wary of stating their claim in Wikipedia's voice than if the Associated Press wrote it. It's not anti-Christian, anti-cyclist, or anti-Semitic to acknowledge that. To describe this fairly bland take on bias in sources as blatant anti-Semitism is, as Elmidae said above, "manufactured outrage". All there is to learn from this incident is that Nomoskedasticit should try harder to assume good faith about their colleagues. Endwise (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to you arguing at RSN that the Wall Street Journal is biased towards straight white men (more than 70% of its readership and clearly oriented towards their interests) and is questionable for covering any criticism of a straight white man or any prejudiced towards them or any conspiracy theories which involved them. This argument goes over like a lead balloon as soon as its applied to socially dominant groups rather than minority ones.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about here? The WSJ isn't a publication dedicated to white interests, its focus is if anything on business stuff. A newspaper dedicated to white people -- say, The Daily Stormer or Radix Journal -- would be far, far less reliable on who is and isn't anti-white than Tablet is for a novel/exceptional claim that an individual is anti-Semitic. If anything, what I said above is arguably even more true for socially dominant groups. Even in my example above, Christianity is socially dominant in America, and a Christian magazine would be less trustworthy than the WSJ regarding claims (to be reported in Wikipedia's voice) about who is and isn't anti-Christian. Endwise (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I'm just taking it the wrong way and overreacting. So, the predominant view here is (it seems) that Jewish-oriented sources are potentially biased in regard to anti-Semitism. Really?? Then let's follow Masem's "logic" where it must lead:

• What African-Americans might have to say about the history of slavery -- it might be biased (so, not a "strong source").
• What gays/lesbians might have to say about the Stonewall riots -- it might be biased.
• What women might have to say about the gender pay gap -- might be biased. (Best to stick to male sources, perhaps??)

Just to be clear: WP:BIASED doesn't compel us to take this sort of view. Okay, it refers to "religious beliefs". But it doesn't say: worry in particular about the beliefs of the groups who might have a long experience with abuse and persecution. Seeing it that way is -- really fucking odd... BTW, I hate Tablet; I'm not proposing that we use it, and I'm not trying to get "anti-Semite" into the Alice Walker article. Not my battle... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think the statement is problematic, for pretty much the reasons laid out well above, but as a single statement it does not establish enough of a pattern of behavior to indicate any action should occur. I think that as a data point, it doesn't look good on Masem, but I also don't believe that other than saying that, any sanctions are needed here. People should be cognizant of how their statements are likely to be understood, especially when dealing with matters in the context of race, ethnicity, and the like, and whatever Masem's intent may have been, saying anything akin to "It's written by a Jewish person, so it is under greater scrutiny" in any form is likely to reflect poorly on the speaker of such a statement. Masem does not have a history of anti-semitism, and I don't believe they have anti-semitic intent here. But it's still not a good look, and people should be discouraged from making such statements in any form, where we cast doubts on reliability of sources merely because of the identity of the author (with regards to any identity issue, be it race, language, national origin, gender identity, sex, sexuality, whatever). --Jayron32 15:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, two statements [443]. Pretty much the same statement but posted to an entirely different noticeboard. I think there are specific examples where the identity of the author could be relevant, for example when covering negative aspects of the Thai monarchy you can't expect any sort of reliability from Thai sources due to Lèse-majesté in Thailand. Thats not the case here though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, an author of Thai descent or ethnicity or whatnot writing in a source based in a country with a tradition of complete freedom of the press would be fine. Your concerns about the political situation in countries without freedom of the press are not an identity issue. They have nothing to do with the ethnic identity of the authors. --Jayron32 15:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about being of Thai descent or ethnicity? I'm only talking about citizens and permanent residents of Thailand regardless of ethnic identity. We generally refer to this as national identity/nationality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: ...What? It's blatantly false that Masem said it may be biased because of the identity of the author or because it was written by a Jewish person. Please re-read his comments; he was talking about the publication, not the author. Endwise (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Are publications not written by people? They certainly were not created, fully formed, during the big bang. Furthermore, I think you missed the point. When I said, and I quote "Masem does not have a history of anti-semitism, and I don't believe they have anti-semitic intent here." what I actually meant by that was "Masem does not have a history of anti-semitism, and I don't believe they have anti-semitic intent here." I hope that clarifies things. --Jayron32 17:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Masem has pretty straightforwardly clarified that he is not saying what you are repeatedly claiming he's saying, so yes, your responses definitely come across as emotional overreactions and defensive misrepresentations in response to other people not seeing it your way. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Chekavar caste promotion

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 Admins, I would like you to have a look at the Chekavar page. This user named @Lakbros has claimed that the Chekavar is a warrior caste or title, in the opening sentence without any references (because there are none). The Ezhava main page, an Extended-Protected page, in its lead paragraph specifically mentions that "the Chekavars were a warrior section within the Ezhava community." I had literally written the same thing, with the same reference, and he reverts it. I had also given capital starting letters to the titles "Chekons" and "Chekavar", because titles are proper nouns and thus start with a capital letter. This guy reverts it to "chekons" and "chekavar" and writes the reason as "clear vandalism."

Furthermore, the word "Thiyya" in the Chekavar lead paragraph does not contain a link to the Ezhava page, because the user is trying to establish the Chekavars as a separate warrior caste (despite the Talk:Ezhava page clearly agreeing that Thiyyas and Ezhavas are the same, and that is why Thiyyas do not have a separate Wikipedia page). He then order an IP check on me and accuses me of being a Nair (when I am a Muslim from Sri Lanka), and says I have made only 20 edits, when he himself has made 30 and 5 edits respectively. His most recent edit features the unknown word "commen" in the lead paragraph.

I request the admins to go through the Chekavar page and see if what I had written constituted Vandalism. I would also like to request a read of the Chekavar page, if possible, from @Sitush and @Fowler&fowler, as they have significant experience in editing Indian Caste-related pages.

Thank you for your help, Admins! TheWanderer9 (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

New sockpuppet of Harvey?

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

---

Following and participating the discussion Talk:Ireland#British_isles, I get more and more the idea that User:Mogh Roith is not a new editor displaying his POV in the discussion. Based on the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT-attitude and his use of citations from policies, I get more the idea that this is a new sockpuppet of the banned sockpuppeteer HarveyCarter. The disruption fits in the pattern. Am I right? See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. The Banner talk 19:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow. No you're not right. You couldn't be any more wrong, if you had decided I was bugs bunny and spiderman rolled into one and was auditioning for the new superman movie. I appreciate you don't agree with the points I've raised on the Ireland talk page, but to make the various and baseless allegations above from that is certainly not cricket. Yes i defended my POV in the discussion. I make no apologies for that I am well able to do so. Yes I referred to the various wiki policies (to which other contributors on the talk page had already linked to), which is really not difficult. I've never ever been an editor on Wikipedia previously. I don't know who HarveyCarter is or even ever heard of him. I joined wikipedia for the first time on the 3rd of October. I have undertaken a number of small and undisputed edits and engaged on the Ireland talk page to highlight what I believe is the unnecessary use of what is already highlighted divisive term and to suggest that be changed. I have made no disruptive edits to that article btw as I know that the issue has been raised many times previously as was pointed out to me by yourself. I hope that clarifies things. Mogh Roith (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've never run across HarveyCarter, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the jump from "has a clear POV and an inability to see when consensus is against him" to "is a sockpuppet", let alone "is a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter". I don't see precocious citations to policies by Mogh Roith in the discussion you linked – I barely see them citing policy at all! I may have missed something, but the only policy citation I see by Mogh Roith in that discussion is this edit, where they quote WP:IDHT in response to you linking to it.

Yes, HarveyCarter and Mogh Roith both apparently have interest in Ireland-related disputes; given how controversial this topic area is it isn't hard to believe that two different people might be interested in this area, and they appear to have focused on separate issues within that topic area (Mogh Roith cares about the use of the term "British Isles"; HarveyCarter, judging by the LTA and SPI pages, has previously focused on British rule in Ireland, the Easter Rising, and claiming that Donald Trump has links to the IRA).

If you think the evidence of sockpuppetry is compelling, report it at WP:SPI, but based on this report I'm not seeing it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair.

@Mogh Roith: my apologies for my suspicion. The Banner talk 13:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Expired IP block needs to be set again – Verone66 from Texas

• 99.116.10.239 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Related to blocked User:Verone66 and the recently blocked range Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:0/64, the Texas IP Special:Contributions/99.116.10.239 came off a two-year block and within a week was back doing the same disruption as the related Texas range.[444][445]

Can we get another block? Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 years El_C 05:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Super! We're done here. Binksternet (talk)

IP 23.84.19.247 constantly blanking their talk page

I was browsing the Recent Changes page and noticed that User talk:23.84.19.247 was being blanked. Investigation showed that the IP was being accused of harassing other users, and blanking things including warnings about the behavior without a resolution. I am new to the wiki so I am not sure what the procedure is in this case, but I think it might warrant admin intervention. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reported to WP:AIV, for what it's worth. It's not the first time this user has done that, it seems like. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Blanking a page is not a crime. I am entitled to do that.

Sequence of events:

1) unsolicitated communication from C.Fred: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23.84.19.247&oldid=1115125274

2) My response: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23.84.19.247&oldid=1115525654

3) Same response but posted on his talk page as notification of request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred&oldid=1115526189

4) liliana gets involved for some reason even no nothing about what I wrote was harassing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23.84.19.247&oldid=1115526813

What I want: I do not want to talk to C.Fred. And I want him to stay off my talk page. This is a simple request, politely delivered, and yet I find myself here on this report page for communications that I did NOT initiate. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify. Blanking my personal talk page is not a crime. That is what I blanked. My personal talk page. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Blanking the page is not the issue, it's that you do it while also harassing others in your edit summaries RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I was not harassing anyone in that edit. Please identify the individual I harassed in that summary. Mods is a pretty vague and broad group. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that you should be allowed to blank your talk page. Our problem is how you do so, with edit summaries that border on harrassment. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you at least understand how from my perspective this feels like persecution? I feel as though people are literally out to get me by zapping every little minor intransigence that occurs. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=1115532631

You wrote in that edit summary that I was "whining" and then simply deleted everything I wrote in my defense. That is totally unfair because then people will only see the complaint but not what I wrote in my defense. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Users (and IPs) are allowed to blank their own talk pages; see WP:OWNTALK. The only thing they can't remove are declined unblock appeals while blocked, which is not the case here.

That being said, edit summaries like this are certainly an issue. SkyWarrior 23:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you can permit me a small, practically hidden unless you are actively looking for it, vent of frustration against what I felt was unfair actions towards myself. I did not single out any specific person at all in that summary. Mods is a pretty vague and broad group. Also, it was on MY talk page. The one page I am actually allowed to control. This is not a crime. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that edit was nonspecific, but this edit is not good. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That edit was a log so that I could easily identify it in case I need to refer to it when mounting a defense like I am doing now. There is nothing there that is harassment. Read it clearly and entirely because that is exactly what I wrote there. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to say that nothing will happen, but I suggest that everyone henceforth just calms down and goes about their day. IP user: please do something else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The blanking is less of an issue than are the baseless accusations of harassment and cyber-stalking. This IP has already been blocked for personal attacks once, they clearly haven't learned better. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully I can bring some balance to this conversation. I have experienced interactions with 23.84.19.247 that were frustrating to say the least, where I felt somewhat harassed and attacked. I did not participate in the discussions leading to the 3-day block because I felt it was aptly handled without any contribution on my part. Now I think the discourse is getting too far from the point of being useful, and everyone should probably take a step back. 23.84.19.247, not everyone is against you. I can see why you might think there is a vendetta against you, but please stop seeing this as you versus the world, it makes it far harder to come to a calm solution.

As for other editors in this discussion, who should surely recognize that this user seems affected by all this drama, perhaps some compassion is in order. I bring up the fact that 23.84.19.247 has not made any further disruptive edits on the main space since their block was reversed, and that most of the claims of further issues are based on edit summaries on their own talk page, some of which might be tinged with frustration, but none of which feels truly malicious. I propose that no further action be taken here for now, let's all just chill out and move on. If 23.84.19.247 would like to positively contribute to the Wiki, great. If that contribution devolves into any sort of disruptive behavior or harassment in the future, their past actions have been logged, and then action should be sought, but I think this is a premature effort to seek further punishment when the 3-day block that already occurred should hopefully be enough to encourage 23.84.19.247 to try and work in good faith with fellow editors going forward. Criticalus (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Partial block on IP brings out registered user

• PieceOfMind83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2804:D41:B00:7626:D5BA:6397:B0B5:73DD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.192.17.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.148.216.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An edit war has been underway for some time at the album article Blizzard of Ozz. Two Brazil IPs have been insisting on one release date against many other editors citing BPI's very reliable website. IP 177.192.17.84 was partially blocked from editing the article,[446] and less than an hour later, Brazil IP 2804:D41:B00:7626:D5BA:6397:B0B5:73DD arrived to continue the edit war, saying "okay, but...". This was a violation of WP:MULTIPLE, an obvious partial block evasion. Five hours after that, the article was put into semi-protection, and registered User:PieceOfMind83 appeared to continue the edit war. I must conclude that PieceOfMind83 is the same person as the Brazil IPs, and that PieceOfMind83 was both violating WP:MULTIPLE and evading the partial block on IP 177.192.17.84. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@PieceOfMind83: Can you please explain your understanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:USERGENERATED ? Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked PieceOfMind83 (and two other accounts) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PieceOfMind83. I make  No comment with respect to IP address(es), and would welcome another admin to review the behavioural evidence and block if warranted — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the research and the blocks.

I will be watching the Brazil IPs for subsequent activity, which I will view as block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The Brazil IP 177.192.17.84 kept editing after PieceOfMind83 was blocked, for instance continuing the edit war at another Ozzy album. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion and disruptive editing by Ytzesza

Ytzesza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sooners01alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I first ran into them, it was regarding an edit warring dispute over on the article Patient Number 9, in which they persistently wanted to keep it as upcoming instead of having the article as released where it was the day of the album's release - as well as adding a source that was not WP:NOTRSMUSIC. It did settle down and they did apologize to me, though I have a feeling that they either might have trouble understanding that there are secondary sources and that an online retailer like Apple Music isn't reliable. Despite being given and sharing the guidelines with them, they have continued to disrupt, as well as bringing back articles that were redirected, with the excuses of being because "They like it" or asking them to contact them on their talk page before redirecting which I suspect is violation of WP:OWN with statement 4 as evidence. They were blocked for a week on October 9 for disruptive editing, but it is clear that they have not been willing to listen to the guidelines on sources. They have now resorted to block evasion, under the name Sooners01alt, and are repeating the same thing they've done with familiar edit summaries on both users. Other evidence is them denying having ever done disruptive editing despite multiple warnings on Ytzesza's talk page, as well as making edits to revert redirects while logged out. The Mob Rules and The Devil Cried are examples of them reverting redirects while logged out. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Sooners01alt" looks like a new user. Who's alt they might be? I suggest you to file WP:SPI for better results. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxing again from Pittsburgh IP range

• 2601:989:4303:20:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Pennsylvania has been disrupting the wiki for more than a year as Special:Contributions/2601:989:4303:20:0:0:0:0/64 which has been blocked three times. The most recent block expired today, and the hoaxing repeated itself with the restoration of Draft:PBS Kids Sprout Awards 2001 and Draft:PBS Kids Sprout Awards, both of which were previously deleted after having been created by this person, as may be seen through warnings issued to User talk:2601:989:4303:20:B490:8346:CB74:5ECA.

Can we get a longer rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Was just about to block; @Ponyo: beat me to it. 1 year is exactly what I was going to do! GiantSnowman 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Great minds, yada yada yada...-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Networkonfusion (2)

Kinda lost myself at WP:RFPP/I#Juno_Temple (permalink). And now I'm scared. El_C 21:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18 edit warring

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

---

User:Keystone18 has a long history - see here and here, among others - of tendentious editing in the topic of Geography of Eastern Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey of marking edits minor that are not. Just a few minutes ago, I noticed that he made this edit erroneously changing the location of my alma-mater West Chester University from Chester County, Pennsylvania to West Chester, Pennsylvania. According to the Campuspus section of the WCU page, the university is located in West Chester, West Goshen and East Bradford township in Chester County. The edit had a -55 character difference and he marked it minor. I reverted it and posted a level 1 Incorrect information warning template on his talk page. Almost immediately, Keystone18 undid my reversion and removed the warning template from his talkspace. No attempt to justify the change he insists on making or to discuss the reasons for the reversion. I undid the undoing of the reversion here and posted a second warning on his page. He immediately reverted it again without justifying it and uundid the level 2 warning template on his talkspace. And now we appear to be a stalemate.

His archive page is full of similar warnings and now that I've checked the history of his talkspace and found that he has hid many more warnings and comments made in good faith by reverting them in similar ways here.

There is no point in me discussing anything else with the other party if he's just going to summarily undo anything I post on in this matter so I am asking for an administrator to try to discuss it with him and to seek a consensus about what location should be in the lead on West Chester University. If the campus is in three different municipalities than to say that it is in only one in the lead is knowingly false. Kire1975 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kire1975: Something might have gone wrong with the above post: where are the "here and here" links. Also, I see an edit at West Chester, Pennsylvania marked minor but it removed 28 bytes, not 55 ([447]). If it's some other page, please link it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Johnuniq:. I copied it from the visual editor in my sandbox but it didn't copy here since visual editing appears to be disabled.

I do now see that Keystone18 has added a source with the mailing address of the dorms on campus. That's a little better but but the edit is just arbitrary really, plus there are already so many unnecessary links cluttering up the lead (MOS:LEADCITE), I just don't know why Keystone18 wants to go to war over this except that he feels like he is the WP:OWNER of the topic. Kire1975 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, there was no effort to initiate a discussion, just an abrupt reversion of my addition of the location for the primary campus and administrative location of West Chester University as being West Chester, Pennsylvania along with an inaccurate/inflammatory allegation that it was somehow vandalistic. It's not uncommon, of course, for universities to maintain satellite campuses, and I left untouched an entire section that explains those locations and facilities in detail later in the article. I also added this supporting reference in support of the West Chester location as its location (of which there are many) from the university itself: ([448]) I'm more than happy to discuss the intro on the talk page if there is some reason we should not use the location used by the university itself and by independent sources, but that would be an atypical intro for a university page. The current intro is very consistent with that used for university pages with a primary administrative location and additional off-site campuses and other facilities. Here is the opening sentence from the "Location of the university" section from the university's own website: "West Chester University is located in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a town that has been the seat of government in Chester County since 1786." ([449]) Here's Encyclopedia Brittanica: "West Chester University of Pennsylvania, public, coeducational institution of higher learning in West Chester, Pennsylvania, U.S." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/West-Chester-University-of-Pennsylvania) Here is Times Higer Education on its location: "It is situated in West Chester, 25 miles west of Philadelphia, by far the state’s largest city." (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/west-chester-university) Keystone18 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I put the warnings on your talk page and you made it disappear immediately. Twice. Don't say "there was no effort to initiate a discussion."

My reason for the reversion was given in the edit summary: the campus is in three municipalities in chester county. Your quick reversion of the reversion says to "list the location, not the county" ignoring that your change ignores the fact that the campus is in three different municipalities in that county. You also ignored the warning about marking edits that are not minor with an m, as you did with your edits here and here in this very noticeboard. Surely you're not going to ask me to pretend you WP:DONTGETIT and again demand that I point out why these are significant edits as you did here, here and here. Many, many attempts to discuss things with you have been made but it's never not like pulling teeth.

Again, those examples are better than not explaining the reasons but it is still arbitrary. This is not the first time this week you have been accused of bulldozing through a Wikipedia page. I hope it was worth it. Kire1975 (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18 has apologized on his talk page in a way that is satisfactory to me. Thank you for providing a space to discuss this frustrating experience. Feel free to close the discussion. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

COI, copyright infringement, and sockpuppetry at Arthur J. Williams Jr.

Arthurjwilliamsjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive and policy-violating COI edits at Arthur J. Williams Jr.. This includes a mass copy paste of copyrighted material in this edit from this Gizmodo article. The edit also includes other bizarre items such as including too many photos for the length of the article along with adding the honorific "The Most Illustrious" to the infobox. The writings that he added that aren't copyright infringement (as far as I can tell) here are completely unsourced and are of an unencyclopedic nature.

The user continued the problematic editing after my initial COI notice on his talk page. I warned him again and asked him to stop, and he claimed in this response that he was a biographer with a local news entity. I then warned him once more to stop. Shortly after, he engaged in sockpuppetry with the account Dominicn123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to add back the same problematic content to the page (see here).

The user and his sockpuppet should be indefinitely blocked and the copyright infringing revisions should be deleted per the revdel notice on the page. Uhai (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Uhai: Blocked the master and sock accounts with an offer to undo the former block if certain conditions are met. Have revdelled the versions with text copied from the Gizmodo article. Please let me know if you find that the editor's earlier contributions to the page were copyvio too (I didn't find an obvious source on a quick search) or if new socks appear. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I also mentioned the obvious impersonation problem with their account name and that they will have to request a new username to continue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ASTRO Clifford adding unsourced info to large number of articles

ASTRO Clifford has been adding unsourced, highly dubious information to numerous articles en masse. They've been given 4 warnings by 3 different editors on their talk page, with no reaction, and they're still going at it after the last warnings ([450], [451]). R Prazeres (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've asked on their talk page where they are getting their GDP data. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: They're back at it again, without having replied to your inquiry. General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Reported the editor at AIV in hope of getting some admin interest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Spencer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone with expertise in demographics should probably take a look at the multiple 'List of countries by population in XXXX' articles ASTRO Clifford has created and/or edited. From a quick look, much of the date looks very poorly sourced and/or lacking a clear citation, if not outright fictitious. For example, List of countries by population in 1250 contains entirely unsourced data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There are 8 such articles, a list of which can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The articles seem to be entirely WP:SYNTHESIS, mixing and matching data from disparate sources, which presumably used different methods of approximation, and using them as if they are compatible with each other. The articles should probably all be deleted on that basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As it happens, I do have expertise in medieval demographics, and those articles are garbage. So much of the field involves educated guesses, scholarship revises all the time, contemporaneous national surveys didn't exist (Domesday, for example, was the only such in England up until the 19th century), and the more honest medieval demographers and historians acknowledge how often they're just throwing darts at a board. Really, one could write an essay on all the ways such a table would be deeply suspect. Hell, the most commonly applied source in the List of countries by population in 1250 article admits "... applying this approach systematically results in historical outcomes that are not consistent with current insights by economic historians." Ravenswing 05:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess, then, if my PRODS are removed, they'll have to go to AfD as a package, where you can provide that evaluation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to do so, along with some more tidbits: looking at the "subdivisions" of one of the articles, there are a great many question marks, and some howling anachronisms -- for instance, the "Trucial sheikdoms" entry from List of countries by population in 1500, not only NOT a contemporaneously acknowledged state, but carrying the flag icon from the 1968 Trucial States Council!! Ravenswing 05:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to the above, take a look at these recent edits to List of countries by population in 500 BC diff. The percentage figures add up to more than 100%, some of the figures are ridiculously precise, and the data given for China for example isn't remotely supported by the source given. I see no reason to assume that anything ASTRO Clifford has added to Wikipedia can be trusted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm going to PROD them all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Everything in Category:Lists of countries by population by year needs checking for poor sourcing etc. This isn't an issue confined to a single contributors poor editing, it is endemic: take a look at List of countries by population in 2000 for example. Most of the data seems to have come from an UN report, but figures have been tossed in from elsewhere, with no obvious explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The first reference in List of countries by population in 1900 is used for 38 of the 59 countries listed, which is somewhat surprising as the reference title is Population of the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1800 to 2020. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• 209.6.246.218 started adding GDP data to some article as the same time as "ASTRO Clifford" (they could be related). This appears to be the source that they're using. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Clear and unambiguous block evasion. And utter incompetence, given the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree (I reported them to AIV). M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears ASTRO Clifford has been citing his own 'compilations' and 'estimates'. Pure WP:OR. [452] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This contributor needs to be blocked indefinitely, on competence grounds

After some discussion at User talk:ASTRO Clifford it has become obvious that this contributor is incapable of actually understanding Wikipedia policy on original research, never mind complying with it. See in particular the latter part of this thread [453], discussing an edit relating to the population of China in 500 BC, where ASTRO Clifford attempts to defend 'interpolating' two data points over a period of 680 years or so, to arrive at an exact figure for an intermediate date (34,182,989 for 500 BC). Given that being able to understand simple policy requirements regarding sourcing (and on not pulling numbers out of one's nether regions) is fundamental to being able to usefully contribute here, I formally ask that this contributor be blocked indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. I don't think there's much hope for this editor at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I’m surprised an indefinite block wasn’t done earlier to prevent further harm. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom - Competence is absent. DoubleCross (‡) 15:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support a siteban with talk page access denied. A person who a) insists on adding unverifiable information even when challenged, b) refuses to acknowledge concerns of the unreliability or irrelevancy of his sources, and c) sockpuppetry even for small-duration blocks to continue doing behaviour he was blocked for simply cannot be allowed to continue to edit here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Jakubik.v

Jakubik.v (talk · contribs) is continuously being very disruptive on the Bebe Rexha discography article by reverting and removing well-sourced content without any apparent justification. In spite of my repeated efforts, he refuses to discuss constructively on the talk page, as he wrote that he "will keep reverting [my] edits". Iaof2017 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I gave you several justified reasons and you are still editing it. For Example adding no longer existing charts, certification of non selected countries, adding things like "no certifications" in certification column etc. Your edits are without sense as many people told you before, not only on Bebe's page. You are keep ignoring it and you should be the one who should get the block. Jakubik.v (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptions and useless comments [454][455] by Jakubik.v are proceeding on Rita Ora discography article, which is currently being reviewed to pass featured list nomination. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's just delete all discographies and put an end to this kind of nonsense once and for all. EEng 10:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Caste vandal

TheWanderer9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is a Nair caste vandal who promotes Nair caste and vandalize other caste pages. See his vandalim on Chekavar page here , removed sourced content and pushed his POV [456]. This same user promotes Nair caste in Nair pages [457].151.200.244.189

IP, that is WP:NOTVANDALISM. It might be disruptive editing, of which vandalism is one subset of, but the only edit to this user's talk page has been a notice of this ANI complaint. It's generally expected for there to be at least an attempt to communicate with this new user beyond that (something, anything). El_C 09:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Admins, I would like you to have a look at the Chekavar page. This user named "Lakbros" has claimed that the Chekavar is a "warrior caste," in the opening sentence without any references (because there are none). The Ezhava main page, an Extended-Protected page, in its lead paragraph specifically mentions that:

"The Chekavars were a warrior section within the Ezhava community."

• I had literally written the same thing, with the same reference, and he reverts it.

• I had also given capital starting letters to the titles "Chekons" and "Chekavar," because titles are proper nouns and thus start with a capital letter. This guy reverts it to "chekons" and "chekavar" and writes the reason as "clear vandalism."

Furthermore, the word "Thiyya" in the Chekavar lead paragraph does not contain a hyperlink to the Ezhava page, because:

• The user (Lakbros) is trying to establish the Chekavars as a separate warrior caste (despite the Talk:Ezhava page clearly agreeing, after a lengthy debate, that Thiyyas and Ezhavas are the same, and that is why Thiyyas do not have a separate Wikipedia page).

• He then orders an IP check on me and accuses me of being a Nair (when I am a Muslim from Sri Lanka), and says I have made only 20 edits, when he himself has made only 30 and 5 edits respectively. His most recent edit features the unknown word "commen" in the lead paragraph.

I request the admins to go through the Chekavar page and see if what I had written constituted Vandalism.

Thank you! TheWanderer9 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

TheWanderer9, that's not how you ping users. See WP:PING. See also WP:INDENT for correctly contributing to threaded discussions. As for your message here, I haven't even tried reading it, because it uses too much bold, which hurts my eyes. But in any case, this isn't an area of study of which I am particularly familiar. El_C 15:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Scott Adams

If we can some extra eyes on the article Scott Adams (Dilbert author) that would be great - it seems some IP editors have been re-adding a joke edit about his IQ, sourced to one of Adams' YouTube videos. I'm assuming that's where some of these editors are coming from, since there are comments on the video joking about these additions to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bridget: You can count me in but I think this is more a matter for WP:RFPP if you ask this editor. ANI is rather...a mess...today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm watching too. I didn't see enough disruption in the page history to feel motivated to request protection, but I'd support it! I would have gone to WP:BLPN for this, and still might if there's a ton of pushback on my removal of the poorly-sourced Mensa/IQ stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Just requested protection. I agree that it's not an awful lot that can't be rectified with a simple Twinkle and I'll support both of your next moves. Thanks for the teamwork. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! I was looking for WP:BLPN but the name slipped my mind. Bridget (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week. Valereee (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

IP editor disregarding MOS

Special:Contributions/2600:1702:CC4:20F0:346F:8017:60CD:DA07 has been disregarding the MOS, particularly MOS:JOBTITLES, since they began editing a couple of months ago. I have left four warnings on their talk page, pointing them to the relevant guideline and explaining how it applies to their edits. After I left a final warning just an hour ago, they made another edit against JOBTITLES. They don't seem to be a mobile editor, so they must be receiving these notices, but have persisted in introducing nonstandard styles. This looks like disruptive editing to me, so a block might get their attention. Wallnot (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

See also this diff subsequent to final warning, along the same lines. Wallnot (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

another diff along same lines. Wallnot (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Bumping this. Would appreciate help from an administrator. Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (non-admin comment) I think they may be correct with the [first edit you list. And I'm not convinced about the second edit. The third edit seems that Associate Justice shouldn't be capitalized. Some (most?) other edits they've done seem reasonable. I don't think it's disruptive editing per se. And I don't see any attempt to revert back what someone had fixed. Nfitz (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for chiming in. To offer a little more explanation as to why these are contrary to JOBTITLES: Per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, a title must be globally unique to be capitalized, and must not be preceded by a modifier, including a definite or indefinite article.

  Re the first instance, many law journals have more than one executive editor, but even supposing that title is unique: there are multiple state district judges. And "Associate Justice" was preceded by the indefinite article "an" and so should be lowercase.

  As far as your suggestion that this is not disruptive editing, I disagree. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS says that a disruptive editor repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits. I have taken the time to explain how this editor's edits are contrary to the MOS. They have disregarded those explanations and continued to introduce nonstandard styles, creating more work for me and other copy editors. Obviously I have no desire to bite an IP; the ideal scenario would be if they would stop introducing nonstandard styles and continue those of their contributions that are productive. But they don't seem willing to do that, and a temporary block would be a good means of ensuring they do so. Wallnot (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that the California Law Review has no less than nine executive editors currently, and about 150 editors total! As such, surely it should read neither "was executive editor" or "was Executive Editor" but "was an executive editor"! Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Titanosaurus

Titanosaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a frequent presence on Oakland Coliseum station for the last five years, with over 600 edits (about half their total edits during that time) to the article or discussions about it. Their edits vary greatly in quality – many have issues with adding irrelevant trivia, poorly formatted or unreliable citations, and/or MOS issues. Worse, they are extremely aggressive about reverting any modifications to their edits, and in any discussions. This has been a recurrent issue for five years now.

The series of edits starting a week ago is typical. That first edit updated a source url without updating accessdate. The next edit added what I consider to be excessive details (a frequent issue with Titanosaurus), plus bare urls as citations. The third replaced an existing source with one that doesn't support the claim. Poor-quality edits from someone who claims credit for the article's GA status, but fine, it's not a huge amount of work to clean up. Titanosaurus reverts my cleanup with no comment, reverts calling it "vandalism", and reverts a third time that day. I left a warning re-explaining the issues on their talk page. Lacking any response in a week (though Titanosaurus edited their talk page and made unrelated minor edits to the article during that time), I redo the cleanup, reverted again with no explanation. This is incredibly hostile and unproductive on their part; given that this is a recurring issue, I believe it's time for admin intervention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected for two days. Use the Talk page to discuss your changes. Star Mississippi 18:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

2401:4900:1C01:D701:C8D:B6D0:A14E:2EAD

Threats of violence on blocked user 2401:4900:1C01:D701:C8D:B6D0:A14E:2EAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here Adakiko (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked (by Yamla). I also revdel'd a bunch more items. El_C 05:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Keith Irvine

Not sure why my earlier comment disappeared... anyway... it looks like the subject’s transgender grandchild wants to have their old name changed. I am not sure what our policy is given we have no source, but if someone skilled in this type of request can help resolve it I would appreciate it. It looks like they tried to change it once before but it was changed back.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If the grandchild isn't notable, not sure why we would need their name to begin with. The last sentence could say basically he was survived by his wife, 2 daughters and a grandchild. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I did not write the text. I only saw it in my watch list, and didn't want to get involved in a content dispute.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the name; the individual is decidedly non-notable, it's not at all clear that the IP is actually the grandchild (so we can't change the name from a WP:V perspective), and honestly very little is lost by just removing the name of a non-notable low-profile individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the article talk page along the same lines as @RickinBaltimore has described above but I see @Red-tailed hawk has BOLDly removed the name entirely. --ARoseWolf 20:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Good BOLD edit.Gusfriend (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)