Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114

Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user

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

I have come across this user's articles and they are horrendously written. The English is awful and completely broken. I am unable to even attempt to make corrections to some of these articles. Sure English isn't everyone's native language, but this user for some reason has auto patrolled rights, meaning the articles he's creating are not even being checked or reviewed properly. How Wikipedia can allow this is astounding, there should be a basic level of English required before such articles are published. Two examples of poorly written articles that I cannot even attempt to try and fix: David Mark Hill and Samuel Hartsel. The Hill article did not even correctly name the execution method which I had to correct: [1]. There are many more. Please can an admin review. Inexpiable (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, you need to post a notice on a user's talk page when starting a discussion about them at ANI. I've posted the notice on MATF's talk page. Levivich (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I usually find that the non-native English users are better than the native editors whose English is just bad. The former are usually happy to be corrected but the latter often take great offence at anything that could be construed as criticism of their writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are indeed practically unreadable and would definitely have benefitted from an NPPer tagging them with the copyedit template. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that their prose is atrocious, and that their autopatrolled status should be revoked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree - WP:CIR. Very inappropriate for them to be an auto-patroller. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Joe Roe gave the user the AP right last year. I'm reluctant to revoke the right without Joe's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Folks, before we discuss removing perms or any sanction, perhaps we could give our colleague the opportunity to respond first? AFAIK, this ANI thread is the first time these problems have been raised? It's kind of rude to jump straight to talk of sanctions without even talking to the user first, particularly when it's someone who has donated thousands of hours here. Before any of the rest of us give our opinion, shouldn't we hear what MATF has to say first? Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Three comments. First, we should definitely allow MATF to respond before any further steps are discussed. Second, please remember that the AP flag isn't really a right; while some stigma likely attaches to its removal, fundamentally it exists to benefit reviewers and readers, and has no benefit to the holder. Third, I would like to hear from MATF whether they have used machine translation to assist them at any point; some of the phraseology strikes me as similar to the meaninglessness that google sometimes produces. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that hearing from the editor for clarification is a good idea, but I also agree that revoking their autopatrolled status is called for and shouldn't be dependent on it. First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Their status can easily be changed back if it appears to be warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• MATF has created 1,152 articles. I just spent a half-hour 45 minutes fixing a relatively simple one, John Harllee (admiral). If that's typical, we're talking about volunteers spending something like 500 800 hours cleaning up after their mess. That's a problem that's significant enough to warrant acting first, and listening to explanations later. Please, would some admin remove their autopatrolled flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  There appear to be some major content issues here. For example, the article Talmadge L. Heflin states

  In 1983, Heflin won the election for the 149th district of the Texas House of Representatives. He was honored by the Alief Independent School District which it was renamed as the Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The source [2] however states

  Mr. Heflin served on the Board of Trustees of the Alief Independent School District from 1973 to 1980. In 1982, the district honored his service to the area with the opening of Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The article implies that he was honoured for winning the election, rather than because he served on the board of trustees, falsely states that something was "renamed" when it was actually a new school being opened, implies the school naming occurred after the election in 1983 when it actually took place in 1982 and it confusingly suggests that the school district turned into a elementary school somehow. There are other examples of exceptionally poor writing,

  In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly.

  Is an extremely convoluted and confused way of saying he lost an election, which somehow avoids actually telling us what the election was. The article is also full of grammatical errors and nonsensical sentences, MOS issues ("politician" and "business" should not be linked), and a plethora of categories that are not verified in the article text - the article contains no information on his involvement in the energy business, his religious beliefs or his non-fiction writing.

  @Beyond My Ken perhaps it would looking into running a bot to unpatrol their article creations after they were granted the right? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm continuing to look to their articles, and indeed you are correct that grammar and construction errors are the least of the problems; the information itself has in many cases been corrupted. I would suggest that all of their articles be moved to draftspace, where they can be worked on without being generally accessible to the public. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Are they actively creating bad articles without responding here? If not, removal isn't urgent, though I agree it's likely to be warranted. AP removal isn't retroactive; any articles they've created would still need to be manually reviewed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

They don't seem to have edited since last night. I understand the principal of not acting unless there is a need to stop ongoing activity, but I think the need here is obvious enough (as I continue to review their articles) that lifting the flag is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the editors above that the issues here go beyond spelling and grammar errors. I attempted to copyedit David Mark Hill before giving up in frustration. At the time I found it, the article stated He had his own The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints church. This was sourced to [3], which says The Hills' Mormon church helped pay their mortgage, utilities and groceries - obviously that doesn't mean that he ran a church!
  The next paragraph is extremely convoluted, difficult to understand and leaves out important context: Hill had began to act as a spree killer after receiving a notice from his wife to file a divorce against him. He was involved in some murders which had resulted three people being killed, in which he was suspected that Hill was the murderer since he had visited a department of social office. It was stated that he also assaulted a person which was his daughter. He killed them since it was for taking his children away from him, in which there was a restraining order against Hill. The actual story, from [4], is Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.
  I can understand why autopatrolled was granted because many of their articles are brief stubs where these issues with writing coherently aren't as apparent (e.g. Nicolas Becker (sound engineer), Andy Lewis (screenwriter)). However, considering the factual errors and general incomprehensiblity of their longer creations I don't think it is appropriate for them to hold this right. Spicy (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Did the admin who granted them this permission actually review any of their work? Every single article I’ve checked so far has been plagued with the above mentioned content issues. Now I’m seeing that they’ve created over 1000 articles? This has the potential to be a massive problem. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FC3F:FA47:1CA0:2CF8 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought the same, but then looking at their page creations before they were granted the autopatrolled right, a lot were stubs with short sentences or lists of films/shows obscuring their language deficiencies. So if Joe just looked at a handful of the stubs on Academy Award winners he wouldn't have noticed anything egregious. The typos and sentence construction chaos are only really apparent when MATF attempts to expand beyond a stub. Perhaps in the case of serial (notable, sourced) stub creators AP grantors should look for any larger page creations/expansions by the user to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the user right. There is sufficient evidence presented here. Additionally require that all future articles from this editor are created as a draft. Per Beyond My Ken: First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Donating thousands of hours here has never been a hurdle to stripping of special rights if the content quality is a serious problem and creating unnecessary work for others. Furthermore, autopatrolled is the one right that accords absolutely no benefits to the user whatsoever other than giving them another hat to wear. NPP has been acutely aware of the abuse of the auto patrolled right for a very long time. Their best suggestion to date is to deprecate this user right which having become a contentious issue has already been recently removed from the sysop bundle. To suggest that it would increase the workload of the reviewers (the usual contra argument) would be a straw man - articles of the quality expected by auto patrolled users only take a second or two to review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with removal of AP as the first step. Per WP:AUTOPAT, "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles". It's quite clear that this editor is not producing "clean articles". I just spot-checked six very quickly and could not identify any major problem without comparing them with the sources. But 5/6 need a copyedit cleanup minimally, with things like Born in Bentonville, Arkansas. (The sixth was a two-line stub). MB 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

According the autopatrolled right based on a random look at a few stubs (if that's what happened) is not the best way to go. Stubs, however clean they might be, are not sufficient to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the requirements for producing a fully fleshed out article. I do recall that mass creating stubs to obtain the autopatrolled right has been deliberately used in the past by users with a specific agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If there's an agenda here, I haven't glommed on to it yet. The articles I've reviewed and fixed so far are about minor politicians and officials, both Democrat and Republican; the encyclopedia would not be affected in any significant way if they were all moved to draft to be worked on.

The problems I've seen are misrepresentation of what sources say (apparently because of misunderstanding), stilted writing, incorrect use of idiomatic constructions (especially in the use of prepositions), convoluted and awkward phrasings, use of infobox parameters that don't exist, nonsensical facts (such as a legislator being suceeded by three people), categorization not supported by text in the article (almost as if MATF has personal knowledge they're using), inclusion of unnecessary information, failure to update information from more recent sources (a person is reported to have 4 brothers, but a correction in the same newspaper changes it to 3 brothers; both sources are cited, but the article still said 4 brothers until I corrected it), etc., all of which are, I think, neither deliberate nor malign, but nevertheless result in sloppy articles that are well below the expected standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that, but from the results, they don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time crafting them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So, is everybody waiting for the user and/or Joe Roe to weigh in here..? I've removed the autopatrolled right. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. I hope we'll hear from the editor soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two active ANI discussions right now regarding users granted autopatrol rights by User:Joe Roe making bizarre and disruptive edits. It also appears in his talk page from 18 days ago that he intends to ignore ANI discussions? Looks like he had a spot of trouble regarding a third autopatrolled user here. Kire1975 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not "ignoring ANI discussions". I haven't been editing for a few days, and by the time I saw the pings in this thread, it had already run its course and I didn't have anything to add. WP:AGF, please. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Going to weigh in here briefly on some of the articles; I'm the one that's moved a few articles of MATF from a temp page to mainspace. However, I don't have AP, so all of those pages went through NPP regardless of MATF having AP at the time. The work I've seen from MATF is rewriting bad Billy Hathorn content; crap that's already got a plethora of issues beyond just copyright, and how copyright rewrites are usually done is by simply taking the content and rewriting it, not remaking an article entirely from scratch. We usually only check for copyright issues; we're not NPP 2.0. Regardless, I find the other problems troubling, but I don't think that we should be jumping to sanctions beyond AP revoking just yet. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Five questions: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? (4) Why did I receive and emailed link to this discussion? I am not an Admin and have no special privileges here (as far as I know). (5) Am I eligible for AP status? FINALLY: why did this page disappear a few minutes ago when I tried to post the above? WEIRD! Shir-El too 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC) If you received an e-mail with a link to this discussion, why don't you ask the editor who e-mailed you why. Your other questions make no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Bbb23Bbb23: the sender was wiki@wikimedia.org! The other three questions make sense if you view this problem as a possible trend, not just an isolated incident, and make good sense in an era of 'fake news', 'fake images' etc. Wikipedia may be this planet's best source of free, relatively unbiased information, which some minds can't stand: it makes them vulnerable. The 5th question is now moot; I looked it up and don't want it. All the Best! Shir-El too 15:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Shir-El too: I can answer that last question: it's because you added your comments to a version of this page from ~6 hours ago, effectively reverting to it. Then Beshogur reverted you. I'm guessing the email you received included a linked DIFF instead of a link to the current discussion, like this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user. Woodroar (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you! Cheers! Shir-El too 15:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Three answers: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? No. It bears very few of the hallmarks of AI article writing; also you'd not teach an AI how to learn by having it do something else. (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? No. There are far better ways of doing both. Writing crappy articles is a function of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit and goes with the territory. The cock-up theory is always better than the conspiracy theory. (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? Very few, even assuming we could do anything. In this particular case, not granting the Auto-Patrolled right would've made discovering this annoying-but-minor (in the scheme of things) event happen earlier. It wouldn't've prevented it because anything that prevents this type of thing also prevents people from creating good articles too. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this is late but this is the evidence that I will provide: For Vanamonde's third comment, I write the articles in my own words and I don't use a machine translation unless I have to which I would use it for the articles that's in other different Wikipedia languages that included Àngel Casas. I would say that with my writing, I would change up my words with searching up another word to "insert word here" in a website, where I would use that word instead. With the Talmadge L. Heflin, I didn't mean that the school was renamed after him when he won the election but I don't know since like sometimes I don't notice. I didn't see anything wrong with my writing. The article Talmadge L. Heflin was a rewrite to get rid of Billy Hathorn's copyright version along with Teel Bivins and Flip Mark. You'll notice when I create them rewrites, I put recreated without copyright and what I do is I copy the categories from the archive version of Hathorn's to make it easier. Then I write it with using the cited sources in my own words. If I'm not editing in like a Saturday or for a few days then I'm like away from the computer since like I'm in somewhere else and while I'm away, I write articles in my Google Docs and then when I finally come home, I would copy-paste then fix it and then make some changes but this is how I write and with Hathorn's writing I use them but I avoid its copyright and make it my own words, but I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English.

With the David Mark Hill edit with the church removal I saw, it had said The Hills Mormon Church which would have meant he had his own church and with the Mormon church link it had redirected to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, in which its also known as Mormon church. With the sentence in the Talmadge F. Heflin article, "In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly" (which is already removed), well I didn't know what election it was but I included it since it was sourced but I don't entirely have access to newspapers.com articles but just stuff that's already clipped, like I clip another thing since there is something clipped in the article and so on, I only have the free version of it. That newspaper article came up while I searched up Talmadge Heflin and it had mentioned the surname Heflin and I just took it as a ref. I didn't mean to cause disruption with my writing but if the community says there are issues with my articles then I would like to fix it if the community gives me a chance to improve it and see what they think. I just include info that's already sourced and just add them, which I saw with the Sally Wheeler article.

With the Neil Haven Klock article, I’m gonna revert some stuff until consensus is made because according to the Louisiana House Members source it says who preceded, served alongside and succeeded him but Beyond My Ken goes along with the obituary, but the Louisiana House Members verifies that he served as a member of the legislative with other info too. It didn't say he left office during 1942 other than the obituary, since it says his term ended in 1944 and the legislative keeps the correct track of the members and years when I see it and it's verifiable. Klock was succeeded by three people according to the Louisiana House Members pdf, even in the archive version of the article, it says that he was succeeded by three people and it was sourced so I added it and just went along with verifiable Louisiana Members pdf, this is an answer to the nonsensical facts thing that has "such as a legislator being suceeded by three people". With T. J. Hooks, I’m gonna revert more stuff too until consensus is made since Hooks served along with E. A. Wilson for which they had both represented Lake. He and Wilson were succeeded by two people, according to the Florida House Membership. The one that Beyond My Ken decided that could stay is William A. Hocker, a politician who has a blue link and was succeeded by Hooker. Also there is this reason that they said was "They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that.", well those articles were created normally, since it was because I created them in google docs when I didn't edit for a week so I copy-pasted them and made them into Wikipedia articles when I came back and had lots I made in google docs and I still have some leftovers that includes Donald Jonas, Vernon Peeples, Bob Terhune and many others too.

Well now I see Beyond My Ken states that "I created seven articles yesterday" which was the (27th-28th), well the first two were from Google Docs, the third-fifth were Billy hathorn's rewrites since I was gonna be gone and I took my time into writing them and the Georgia's politicians stubs were created easily since I couldn’t find anything else but I found information in the pdf so I used it since it was SOURCED. Then I left to go somewhere else. The 16th had ten articles they say and most of them were from my Google Docs and some like Barry Oringer and William Wood (screenwriter) were created instantly. The article Taky Marie-Divine Kouamé was created when I woke up, since she won a medal in a notable event and had coverage too. The article Bo Callaway was recreated since it was gonna remove lot of stuff except the beginning so I rewrote it without copyright, that I'm adding more info. The 15th is when I came back, since I started off with Andy Detwiler who I written in my google docs and then the rest I wrote in google docs mostly. This is all I could say if it makes sense. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I really hate to say it, but WP:Competence is required, and MaTF's long comment above speaks volumes about their lack of competence in writing acceptable English (as well as some basic misunderstandings about American electoral procedures); I won't embarrass them by pointing out the many basic errors it contains.

I believe that it is necessary for the following actions to be taken:

1. Move all the articles listed here to draft space. Editors who have fixed any of MaTF's creations can move them back into article space, and reviewers can whittle away at the rest of the list over time.

2. Topic ban MaTF from creating articles more complex than the most basic stub (their stub articles seem to be OK) or extensively re-writing existing articles. I'm not quite sure how such a TB would be phrased, but I do think it's necessary. They can continue to do other non-textual work around Wikipedia - there's plenty of that to be done that doesn't require extensive ability to write acceptable English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

But can I try improving my articles like I've seen many copyedits in my articles, but can I get a chance to fix them and then see what the community thinks. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• MATF, that manner of paraphrasing sources is completely inappropriate. You need to understand what the source has said, and construct your own sentences summarizing that material. If you carry out word-for-word replacements, you're going to alter the meaning of the text and produce incomprehensible content, and you're also not avoiding copyright issues at all. If you're not using machine translation, and English is your native language, I'm sorry to say I don't know what advice to offer you; but you need to be able to understand the sources you're using, and if you lack the ability to do Wikipedia isn't the best hobby for you.
  I don't think a TBAN will achieve anything here: the issue appears to be with any non-trivial content. Either MATF can fix this approach; possibly be reducing the speed at which they work, and by taking the time to understand what they're reading and writing; or they can't, in which case, what are they doing on Wikipedia? I would suggest that MATF be required to work on and fix any five articles of their choosing from among their creations, and if they can address the issues here, we can work out a system of probation. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, we need to consider a site-ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the AP role but I just want to still create articles, but I need to improve the others first. Can someone check how I did with James Sturch. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: Your changes to James Sturch were improvements as far as they went, but another user (Larry Hockett) still had to make further changes, correcting some pretty basic errors in English phrasing. It doesn't speak well to your ability to fix the problems with the articles you created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: If you'd like, take a look at the list on my talk page of your articles which I have worked on. While not perfect, they may give you more of an idea where your mistakes lie if you compare their condition now to how they looked when you stepped away from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved Nick Mackey to draft as some content was unintelligible, user has made numerous efforts to improve this with zero success “resigned for which he was probed from a reason" “"he was resigned due to being investigated from some issues” ”he was resigned from his duty due to being investigated from his fabricating hours" now “In 2003, he was resigned.” WP:CIR is appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That article has been worked on by several editors and is now fine. I've moved it back into mainspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a situation where, rather than a TBAN, having a mandatory AfC draft submission for all their articles would be appropriate instead? Silverseren^C 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As a reasonably active AFC reviewer, our workload is heavy enough without having more than the few mandatory AFC users we have already. All this would achieve is moving the problem around the various willing horses. Mentorship, assuming that still exists, would be a more immediate feedback and education loop. AFC has a large backlog and our role is to accept drafts that have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We are not meant to strive for perfection, though some reviewers do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user from article space. Frankly, I don't think that's sufficient because they will just create work editing badly in draft space. I would prefer a topic ban from article creation in any space, and if my prediction is valid, I can also add draft space to the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23, I'm not sure there's consensus here for such a drastic action. Also, it does seem both unnecessary (given that the editor has accepted the criticisms here) and counterproductive (given that they've expressed the intention to go back and correct problems with their articles). – Uanfala (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Admins can take actions on their own discretion, which I assume was the case here. As for MaTF's intention to fix the problems with their articles, given the nature of their comments here, I do not believe that the editor is capable of correcting the type of mistakes their articles are replete with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to get the attention of what I'm gonna say. In my opinion, I think that I should create articles in draftspace that way it could be reviewed by AFC reviewers. I will read the guideline correctly and take my time into creating articles in draftspace. I'm just asking for a second chance from the community and this will be all I will say. I will mention that I should get access to edit namespace again but I would mainly just edit a bit and also add refs. I would still like to improve my articles in namespaces so I can fix it, but I didn't mean to cause disruption. I'm gonna stay back and come back for a few days to see what happens. Thank you! Please ping me if necessary. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: Is English your first language? If not, how would you rate your proficiency in English? — Trey Maturin has spoken 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

English is my first language. This is how I write in English. I apologize if I'm not intelligent at it, but this is my English. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well then that is a very serious problem for us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe English is MATF's native tongue. Sorry but... Just got through cleaning up some of their articles. I came across Eloise Hardt on my own. The others I sought out. I will clean up/clear up as many as I can. A list of articles MATF created or worked on is here. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan (Non-administrator comment) Hi! I wanted to give a few suggestions to you since I was at one point in your boat with regards to newer articles. Firstly, I will not be making any comment about age or grade level but if you are under 18/21, I suggest you read WP:YOUNG, it has a bit of guidance aimed at those under 18/21. Secondly, if you say that there are problems with your English, I'd suggest you find a wikitask that you can do that does not require making your own prose (like typo fixing or anti-vandalism work). If you are not comprehending a source then you should not be adding the content from that source. Some sources use extremely specialist terms that only a handful of people (like doctors, mathematicians, historians, etc.) understand, and no amount of reading those sources will make you suddenly understand them. Lastly, it is important that you understand your limits. From WP:CIR: Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. If one specific task you are doing is causing problems to the project, then you should cease such task and select another task that you would be able to help with. If you are unable to do that, I am afraid admins may come in and place sitewide blocks and bans. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for mass move to draftspace?

• Request - We've had numerous editors here examine MaTF's articles, and the consensus seems to be that, other than very basic stubs, their articles are in need of serious attention. Could an admin or page mover who has the ability to do bulk moves please move this list of articles to draft space? I am a page mover but I don't have the automation or semi-automation capability to do such a mass move. After it's done, I will move the 15 or so articles I worked on back to article space, and I hope other editors who fixed MaTF's articles will do the same.
  (If there's another method of accomplishing the same thing, then that's fine too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken there are userscripts to do mass moves. Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Moving_and_merging. – robertsky (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any consensus for a mass move to Draft. Your list has over 1,000 articles going back over a year. MB 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  So it would be your preferred course to leave 1,000+ badly written and sometimes inaccurate articles (less those fixed by other editors already) in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will fix them randomly, as opposed to moving them to draft where editors actively vet possibly problematic articles? That hardly seems helpful to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Moving the articles to draft space to allow active editors to triage them seems sensible given the level of incompetence demonstrated in the creation of the articles. There are a number of editors currently working on mitigating the damage done and if moving them to draft space helps those editors willing to put in the hard work then I support the move. Not everything has to be complicated and bogged down in process, especially when the ultimate result will be better (comprehensible) articles for our readers. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  BMK, with respect (I mean that), I don't think you need to be so hot and heavy with MB. A mass move of over 1000 articles needs a clear consensus - it's fine for someone to question whether that consensus is there yet. I looked at one of the articles today myself, and did some copy editing, which essentially involved restructuring every sentence. I agree that draftifying is probably a good idea. Let's just try to avoid snarling at each other while we discuss what the best course of action is. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think perhaps you read more into my comment than I intended, or I did not express myself well. If MB took offense at it, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've now hived off this section of the discussion to serve as a formal discussion of whether there is a consensus for a mass move of MaTF's un-fixed articles to draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• To help coordinate efforts to improve MaTF's articles, I've created User:Beyond My Ken/MaTF-created articles. Editors are encouraged to delete from the list any articles they have worked on which are of sufficient quality that they do not need to be moved to Draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett, Brunton, Teblick, MurrayGreshler, Spicy, and Girth Summit: Please see my previous comment on this thread. Apologies to other editors whose efforts I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I removed an article that I rewrote. If possible, it may be a good idea to introduce a length-based cutoff - I haven't seen any evidence that there's anything wrong with all of the basic substubs in the format "[X] was an American [occupation]. He won an Academy Award for [Y]." Spicy (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sub-stubs I've seen have been fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Urgh - I just looked at Nate Monaster, and it's not just poorly written, but it seems to be full of factual inaccuracies as well. The second sentence runs as follows: He was nominated for an Academy Award for Lover Come Back and That Touch of Mink and a win for Pillow Talk, and Mink won him the Writers Guild of America Award win for Best Written American Comedy, which he shared with his partner Stanley Shapiro. At first, I thought this would just be a copy-editing job, but then I checked the sources - as far as I can make out, he didn't write on Lover Come Back or on Pillow Talk. I can't read all of the sources, but the ones I can see only mention the nomination for That Touch of Mink. In short - put me down as supporting a mass move to draft space. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly moving these articles to draft. NPP is the first port of call for every new article. The fact that this has been subverted by a holder of the AP right means that they should first be marked 'unreviewed' and put back in the NewPagesFeed where they will receive the appropriate first attention by vetted New Page Reviewers. Their triage will ensure their future destiny be it Draft, or any one of our deletion processes. Contrary to what is often misunderstood (including by the WMF to whom I had to explain this yesterday in a planning meeting with them), moving to draft does not automatically increase the workload at AfC; that only happens when the creator submits the draft. Beyond My Ken's work on this delicate issue - where the creator should never have been accoderd AP - has been excellent, but mass moving to draft is not the immediate solution. With their backlock at an astounding low of around 500, the NPPers have more than enough time to process a 1,000 stubs and other inappropriate articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: Thanks for that information. Can articles be mass-marked "un-reviewed" or does it have to be done one by one? Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Beyond My Ken: unless a bot or a script could do it, it would need to be done one-by-one. I know this means seeing the pages twice but it's the proper way to go and would avoid inviting any new precedents that we might regret later. So proper in fact, that I don't mind doing some of it myself. The NPPers could take care of the reviewing or I could even do that on the fly too while marking them ureviewed but the New Pages Feed has to the the first logical stop in the correct workflow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's worth noting that Moving to draft will not give MTF the benefit of any doubt because he is blocked anyway. There is the possibility of a little known system at NPPNE. If nothing comes of that, the articles can then be PRODed along with any other unsuitable ones. That would give them 7 days exposure to the wider community which they wouldn't get as drafts, and after that they would be deleted. That would also ward off any accusations that NPPers are using draft as a backdoor route to deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the article space block extend to drafts? If not, or if there was a way to make it so that it doesn’t, then moving the articles to draft would enable MTF to carry on working on them. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless Bbb23 has extended the block, it's just for editing mainspace at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that a move to draft is the ideal solution. It allows them to be checked before being moved back, and it will also give MTF a chance to work on them and demonstrate that the mainspace block is no longer necessary. Brunton (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support I mean it's just embarrassing how poorly written these articles are, not just that but the information also seems to be incorrect in most of them as if he didn't even bother to read the sources. Good job I found this user before he did even more damage. The admin who gave him auto patrolled rights really messed up here I'm afraid and should be called out for this serious error. I'll help go over some of his articles but it will take up a lot of time to go over all of them, a lot of unnecessary damage here that could have been avoided if his articles had been thoroughly checked before he was granted this right. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• As pointed out above, at the time MaTF received the autopatrol flag, he had xreated primiarily sub-stubs, which -- as far as I've seen -- are acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  AP is supposed to be granted based on a reliable history of creating "clean" articles. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled says an editor should have written at least 25 "articles" and specifically says redirects and dab pages don't count. It shouldn't be necessary, but that could be changed to also say the articles should at least be Start-class. MB 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Given the attitude of New Page Reviewers expressed in the section below, I do not believe that Kudpung's suggestion to not move MaTF's articles to draftspace, but instead to mark them as needing review would be an adequate solution, as the problems with them won't be fixed, they'll just be rubber-stamped back into mainspace, because the subjects are notable. Therefore, I request that an admin assess this discussion -- which has been ongoing for 10 days now -- to see if there is a consensus to move MaTF's articles (the ones that remain on the list here) to draftspace. My assessment is that there is a consensus (4-1) to do so, but I think an admin should make the call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, despite about a dozen or so editors working on MaTF's articles for almost 2 weeks now, there are still about 800 on the list which haven't been fixed or checked and passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. Admins seem to have more important tasks to do in any event. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sometimes, no article is better than a bad one and that appears to be the case here, particularly NPP doesn't believe they are able to address the issue through their processes. BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I picked two random articles from the list BMK developed and found similar factual issues as others have. There's just no reason not to go with the more proactive approach here in the face of the scale of the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I have also previously had issues with this user's articles and have even used AWB to correct basic but widepread grammatical problems. The sentence structure in them is often so poor it is simply too much work to rewrite. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Another aspect of the problem

Another aspect of the problem with MaTF's articles is that they appear to be being approved at Articles for Creation in a state which is not actually up to Wikipedia standards. User:Ingenuity just passed Paul Bolster, J. E. Jumonville Sr. and Paul Taliaferro despite all three of them required editing to fix basic errors of grammar and style - and this despite Ingenuity being aware of this thread. Is there a problem with AfC's standards? Why are articles that are not up to Wikipedia's basic standards being approved? Or is the problem with this particular reviewer? Who is responsible for seeing that AfC's standards are sufficient to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes such as these? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You can take a look at the AFC reviewing instructions, specifically WP:AFCPURPOSE. From the guidelines: Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace. All of the above articles pass WP:NPOL and would easily pass AfD. The purpose of AfC isn't to decline every article that has grammar mistakes. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress; not every article in mainspace has to be perfect. If you feel that the requirements to pass AfC should be more strict, feel free to open a discussion at the AfC talk page, which is probably a more appropriate venue for a discussion like this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What's missing is the content of the box in the workflow diagram before the article even gets to review: "Correct and submit for review", which is to be informed by (green box) "Communication: reviewer comments / in-line message / AFC discussion / User talk page / Tea House / IRC". Did any sort of communication take place between you, the reviewer, and MaTF? If not, why not, when there were basic problems of grammar and style in the article? If there was discussion, why weren't the errors pointed out to MaTF?

Perhaps I'm naive. I thought that AfC reviewers were actually doing something to protect Wikipedia from badly written articles, and not simply checking off boxes on a checklist by rote. You seem to believe that your job as a reviewer to to approve anything that doesn't fail preset criteria. I see your job as being to make sure that badly written articles stay in draftspace until they're fixed. Your way lead to our having to re-check over 1,000 articles written by MaTF, so I don't see it as a very successful methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We accept articles that would survive an AfD discussion. Articles with spelling errors don't get deleted. The queue is too big for us to be holding drafts over every issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

These were not "spelling errors", the articles had bad grammar and basic style mistakes. We are a reference work used by millions of people. We cannot afford our articles to have sentences in them such as

"In 1991, Taliaferro was pleaded guilty of bank fraud by a federal jury. It had resulted him from being suspended of the Oklahoma Senate."

We sound like something written for little children when our articles say things like

"He attended Eastern Baptist College, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in 1966. Bolster also attended the University of Mississippi, where he earned his master’s degree in 1967. He attended the University of Georgia, where he earned his doctorate degree in 1972. He also attended the Georgia State University, where he earned his law degree."

We are better than that, and we should demand that new articles meet our standards of quality.

You say your queue is too long, and I'm sympathetic. But when articles like that are thrown into Articlespace they're no longer in any queue at all. There's no additional process to check over articles for basic problems except blind random chance - AfC is the process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought we as a community already held the view that the bar of "mainspace acceptable" was far below "well-written". This is the quality you get when you entrust the general public to write an encyclopedia. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to a policy which advocates that Wikipedia articles should not be written to a basic standard of quality? What the heck is Draftspace for if not a holding place for articles that aren't ready for prime time? If we're not going to check the articles out properly before they move into the encyclopedia, we may as well get rid of it altogether. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the most important parts of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. This is said pretty much everywhere. I don't know, "bad grammar" is not a decline rationale on the AfC script. There isn't even a consensus for what should be incubated in draft (page movers draftifying is usually an arbitrary decision or based on unspoken precedent), so what are meant to act on? —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The policy is WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Don't you think that "This is the quality you get when you entrust the general public to write an encyclopedia" is a rather inappropriate attitude for a New Page Reviewer to have? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No. there's a difference between me having an opinion and it affecting my work, and my attitude at NPP vastly differs from that at AfC. I'm also not accepting any imperfect articles through AfC, since I'm autopatrolled and the articles I accept don't enter the NPP queue. Users without AP can more freely accept drafts because they still get manually reviewed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You make good points. But, the community has simply been reluctant to empower one editor, NPP or AFC, to gatekeep articles on notable topics from mainspace. Most of the large-scale issues such as this are taken care of at AN/ANI. A reviewer could get into trouble for doing the exact same thing an AFD or ANI consensus might do about these problem articles/editors. Because individual editors don't have that mandate. Some power users good at argumentation maybe could get away with doing what you suggest, but you can't fault an average AFC/NPP editor for not going that route. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So I gather that the attitude is that if the subject is notable, any old piece of garbage article is better than none at all. That's ... sad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not an attitude, it's the state of the community consensus today. You know as well as I (maybe better) that we have a spectrum of editors on the project from include everything to delete everything. The balance currently is to not allow an individual reviewer to keep articles from mainspace using other excuses not to do with notability of the article (I assume, for fear that deletionists will overrun AFC/NPP). I don't know why this surprises you since this is the state with AFD as well where if an article passes notability, other issues rarely if ever result in deletion or draftification. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This issue is fundamental as the essential feature of Wikipedia is that it's quick and dirty. This was the big breakthrough after it was found that the perfectionist model of Nupedia was an utter failure. This approach of making a weak start and then refining the content has long been enshrined in the policy WP:IMPERFECT which explicitly says that " Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." That's why we have the article grading system in which the Start level says "Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use." So, if there are grammar issues of this sort, the article should be graded as Start class and left where the relevant projects and copy-editors will find it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment as I figured I was just missing something, but this sub-section kinda reinforces my feelings... Are these articles really that bad? I checked over a random ~15 from xtools, all had some grammatical issues and some had some trivia in them, but overwhelmingly seemed fine. I see an example of actual error above, but not many of them, though that's not to say they don't exist; much of the focus in this section has been on the grammatical quality. It doesn't seem much worse than the avg article I stumble across when I use Wikipedia as a reader. The examples BMK cites above, like In 1991, Taliaferro was pleaded guilty of bank fraud by a federal jury. It had resulted him from being suspended of the Oklahoma Senate I don't this are that bad. a) it conveys the information clearly, even if the grammar is broken; b) it's an easy copyedit job, including for an interested reader who stumbles across it, giving them an easy in into the world of editing. I think WP:IMPERFECT is aptly cited: Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. Unless there's a pattern of greater errors (i.e. of matters of fact and sourcing), IMO remove autopatrolled from the user and let them continue; NPP can deal with articles, or tag them as required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• In the face of such determined resistance to a minimum basic standard of quality, I'm dropping the entire matter, at least as far as I'm concerned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Welcome to the club, meetings are Thursdays at 6 in the WMF office basement; please bring a snack to share. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose as an inclusionist and someone who's expressed horror several times at particular AfC rejections, I should welcome the revelation above, that AfC reviewers are applying only the standard of notability sufficient that the article would probably clear AfD. But there are several areas of concern with MoviesandTelevisionFan's articles (those that are not stubs) beyond grammar and spelling errors that can be cleaned up in the ordinary course of copyediting.

• For one, the standard of English is so low, it's hard to understand and requires emergency fixing by some other editor(s) at the cost of whatever else they may have planned on working on. Samuel Hartsel in the version by MoviesandTelevisionFan flagged in Inexpiable's original post, containing the headscratcher He had a brother who was Joseph Hartsel, in which he had died in 1901 for which there was consensus that he was murdered and was considered deceased but there was proof to show that he was strucked by lightning while his body was found in 1903. The article has now been fixed, but I made a note to myself to try to sort out from the sources what on earth happened to Hartsel's brother, what people thought when, including whether there were doubts about his being dead, and how in any case this was relevant to Hartsel. It goes far beyond "in which he" when the editor should have written "who", or "strucked" for "struck" into CIR territory.
• Beyond that, as noted by Spicy with examples from Inexpiable's other example, David Mark Hill (again, I've linked to MoviesandTelevisionFan's version of an article that others have now fixed), the editor has misrepresented the sources, based presumably on imperfect understanding, but nonetheless that means the articles have to be checked for accuracy, too. This is similar to the concern with machine translation: the work is so poor that it may mislead the reader. Regardless of good intentions, we have to fix such articles or remove them. This is the other reason competence is required. Wikipedia is writing for publication, and real people with real descendants and real historical achievements are potentially being misrepresented in inaccurate articles.
• I don't doubt anyone's good faith here, including anyone not appreciating why these articles were draftified and re-mainspacing them, I dream of horses for nominating MoviesandTelevisionFan for autopatrolled and Onel5969 for seconding a year ago. MoviesandTelevisionFan has shown willingness to fix the problems with the articles and has responded frankly to questions here. Unfortunately their responses demonstrate that they aren't up to extended writing in English, and also that there may be an issue with self-assessment: they've said here both I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English. and, in response to a question, English is my first language. Maybe a definition issue with first vs. native? Maybe it really is a writing problem? But we operate in writing here.
• There are also copyright issues. As Vanamonde93 noted above, MoviesandTelevisionFan doesn't have a good grasp of how to rewrite text that is copyvio or overly close paraphrasing. But according to Sennecaster, they've been recreating articles by Billy Hathorn. Billy Hathorn was indeffed for copyvio in 2011, unblocked in 2013, and community banned as a serial copyright violator (and sockpuppeteer) in 2015. MoviesandTelevisionFan's initial statement above refers to using the archive version of Hathorn's as a starting point for categories and text, then rewriting to eliminate copyvio. Other than that there has been a massive copyright investigation for Billy Hathorn's articles, I didn't know what happened to them, but following the trail from a thanks message on MoviesandTelevisionFan's user talk, I see that they created Noreen Corcoran after it had been deleted as a Billy Hathorn article that had not been cleaned up by April 2021. By "archive version", does MoviesandTelevisionFan mean versions of deleted articles at the Wayback Machine? In addition to accuracy, any articles they've recreated based on Hathorn's work also need to be investigated for copyvio of the less obvious lexical substitution type. Any of those that haven't been thoroughly rewritten by other editors should be at CCI until they're pronounced clean, and there may be need for revision deletions. (Sennecaster thanked them for working on Hathorn articles, but from what has emerged here, we can't assume they fixed the copyvios adequately.)
• As I recall and as alluded to by Sennecaster, there were other problems with Hathorn's articles, including IIRC notability concerns and poor sourcing. If MoviesandTelevisionFan has been working based on Hathorn's articles, we shouldn't be so sanguine that their article topics are notable.

Since CCI is horribly backed up and in any case just looks at that; both NPP and AfC don't check for accuracy and can't be expected to do either the extensive copyediting needed or the deeper check for copyvio of the rewording type; and since some editors have already thoroughly redone some of the articles, I recommend they be segregated as a special project list in either draft space with a big notice at the top or some poor blighter's userspace. And in drafting future articles, MoviesandTelevisionFan should not work on any more Billy Hathorn articles, or create any biographies requested by someone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would assume that MTAF's been taking them off of archives or mirrors, or rewriting them before they get deleted. When I checked the rewrites for copyvio, nothing read as a copyvio or close paraphrase. I couldn't reword the sentences another way, so they were able to pass under the threshold of originality. I went back and rechecked Flip Mark, Talmadge L. Heflin (both fine), Clarence Addison Brimmer Jr., and Bo Callaway which had some suspect text I should have rewritten before moving but was subsequently CEd down. There's not really an efficient way to track down anything else I approved without manually searching individual pages. I apologize for not catching this sooner, or telling MTAF about the full extent and problem of Hathorn articles. I would suspect though that only longer rewrites and more complex sentences need attention on the copyright end, as much of what is written in those articles still falls below the threshold of originality that would push it into close paraphrasing. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I am not remotely blaming you here, or even MTAF. But what we have here is someone with poor English skills (in the written dimension) who has recreated articles that were deleted for good reasons, and in doing so has used paraphrase techniques that both introduced inaccuracy and made checking for copyvio more complicated. It's not a matter of notability—although Billy Hathorn was not a good judge of that in politicians, outside politics he may have been perfectly capable of judging notability, and in any case actors, for example, have since had several years to accrue further roles and further press—if these articles cannot be segregated and stubbed/checked (with revision deletion likely needed), the Billy Hathorn aspect is a good argument for mass deletion of those nobody has rewritten and taken responsibility for. They should definitely not be re-mainspaced on the basis of apparent notability if they derive from Billy Hathorn. Anyone who recreates a deleted article from an archived version (and MTAF says above that he started with an archived version and reworked it ina document file) should realize it's a dangerous proposition; it's probably spelled out as a no-no somewhere in our voluminous PAGS. This is why reconstructions exist on places like Deletionpedia, Everybodywiki, and Wikia/Fandom, because Wikipedia deletes things and doesn't allow simple re-creation. @Ingenuity and VersaceSpace: Please note this dimension of the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just to note that the vast majority of MaTF's created articles have not been draftified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Billy Hathorn aspect

I'm making a new subsection because the fact MoviesandTelevisionFan has been creating articles previously written by Billy Hathorn deserves consideration by itself. Billy Hathorn is a banned editor, and is banned not for his communication style or something like that, but because of his article work. If all MATF's article creations these days are recreations of Billy Hathorn articles, it comes awfully close to proxying for a banned editor even if the copyvio has been fixed. For example, Kenneth Osterberger, created via AfC from a draft that MATF started on November 9, was deleted on October 25 as an unfixed Billy Hathorn article; Google cache shows me a blanked version (and since only admins can now see the old version, here's what it looked like on June 26; also the basis of the Military History article at Wikia/Fandom). MATF should have been working to fix such articles through the CCI, and instead is backdooring them into the encyclopedia again via a route that makes it a crapshoot whether they're examined for remaining copyvio; but of course MATF can't currently work on the published articles, because they're p-blocked from article space. I remain concerned about accuracy, too. I recall problems with Billy Hathorn's sourcing, and when I worked on the Kenneth Osterberger article today, I was unable to find anything that doesn't go back to Wikipedia that gives his date of birth. MATF's article sources that to a newspapers.com page that I can't see, and also gives the guy a father with a different last name; the article based on Billy Hathorn's work has "Kenneth Osterberger, Sr. (died 1946)", which I can't verify either. I was able to find an independent obituary in the same newspaper as the family-submitted one MTAF cited; and it has him dying a week later than the earlier versions of the article. I think this article is substantiating that there were more than copyvio concerns with Billy Hathorn articles. I've asked MATF on their talk page how they came to work on Billy Hathorn articles. But despite their evident good faith and commendable readiness to work on their English prose, I don't believe we should be allowing wholesale re-creations of Billy Hathorn articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Edit to the foregoing: I'm bad at numbers, but the family obituary and the archived version of the old article both have the death date that I corrected to; unless the error was introduced between June and the article's deletion last month, MATF appears to have miscopied it. Can someone with newspapers.com access please check whether this reference is about the same person and supports the birth date and his father's name being George Breazeale? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, I take your point, but it's also arguable that the editor's fixing the situation left behind after a banned editor ruined a bunch of articles. Obviously, we shouldn't encourage banned editors, but we also don't want a situation where a bad editor having worked on something ruins its chance of having an article, so there is at least some merit in fixing things behind them.

That said, this feels like a very bad way to do it, and if it's using the deleted articles' text and not just its sources, that's an attribution nightmare. Like, shouldn't we technically be crediting Billy in the page history? Probably better to delete them than to just create a different sort of copyvio. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 09:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

MATF, for a small amount of the articles, did the rewrites before the article was deleted. I haven't seen other rewrite movers like MER-C credit Hathorn or really anyone who wrote the original text for rewrites, but those are a very small subset. The ones written after deletion need to either be below the TOO, aka basic sentences, rewritten/cleaned of any close paraphrasing, or deleted again. I'd suspect that some could be AFD'd or "merged" elsewhere for sheer notability reasons. I've myself plans to rewrite some and it's literally a pinwheel game of "notable or not" with it being rigged towards the latter. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Oh, I hear you. That's the trouble with deletion of banned editors' articles; there's damage to our encyclopedic coverage. However, one of the things that made Billy Hathorn problematic—including when he socked—was that he had an eccentric view of notability. His articles on Republican politicians tended not to meet notability standards. It's been a long time and I was just an observer, but I have the impression that that's how he came to notice and his close paraphrasing was discovered later. Sennecaster, that's also my impression, that several of MATF's recreated articles are on people of borderline notability, if that—Kenneth Osterberger, for one (longtime state senator, chief claims to fame as the successful opponent in David Duke's first run for public office and as founder of the prayer breakfast in his state senate, which is not in the new version of the article and the former wasn't till I found independent coverage and added it). There must have been run-of-the-mill elections coverage, but even MATF, who apparently has newspapers.com access, didn't find and add any, and I struck out, barely finding an obituary. If I were choosing a banned editor to recreate their articles as a suggestion for what to work on, Billy Hathorn would be low on my list. MATF has now responded to my query about how they came to start doing this, saying it started with Noreen Corcoran, but I'm still puzzled as to how they found the name Billy Hathorn and decided his articles were good candidates for recreation. Thanks for noting that some were pre-deletion clean-ups, Sennecaster. I also see that Casey Toof, which MATF created as a draft on November 11, cannot have been a Billy Hathorn article, because Toof was only elected in 2019, and (unless I'm being misled by the deprecation of deletion logs last month, what on earth is that about) has not previously been deleted. However, Toof is another state, not national, Republican legislator, and the depth of the cited sources is unimpressive. Something smells here. I think MATF may have been taken advantage of. I think they should stop writing biographies and I still think the best solution to the convoluted problem of underlying copyright violation / poor writing with inaccuracies / notability problems / effective proxying for a banned editor is mass deletion of those of their biographies created since they started working on Billy Hathorn articles that other editors have not carefully looked over and improved and thereby vouched for. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Aye. I think you could probably just about make a case for most state senators if you wanted to - they're going to meet WP:GNG somehow, if only in the election reporting - but it's a pretty narrow notability, and not exactly a primary focus, is it? Now, I've not reviewed MATF's work intensively, but somewhat thinking this is a simple "Competence is required" issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If the subjects of these articles aren't Wiki-notable, then why are they being passed through AfC? I've learned from the above discussion -- to my surprise and deep concern -- that AfC doesn't check for quality, but checking for notability is something they're supposedly doing, is it not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Election to a state-level legislature is considered an automatic NPOL pass regardless of GNG. We have numerous one-line stubs about minor American politicians who served in the whatever state senate for 10 minutes in the 1800s. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, state senators probably pass GNG if you actually check the right newspaper archives and publications of the state bodies. But they probably aren't worth much more than a stub in most cases. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 17:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Cuerden: there are WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD) problems here. A possible fix is to restore the deleted revisions (which includes usernames) and revision delete (RD1 criterion) their text. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to throw in my two cents. I have stubbed about 50 previously deleted Billy Hathorn articles, generally retrieving from the deleted edit history infobox content, templates and categories, and some text and citations, particulary where such content was entirely added by later editors. I have done this particularly with respect to articles that I felt needed to be restored to fill real coverage gaps. I see no problem whatsoever with creating these articles, as the rationale for their deletion was never about the subjects being unsuitable for coverage, and only ever about copyvio matters. BD2412 T 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! As an admin, you can see the deleted edits; MATF hasn't had that option so presumably (usually) works from single versions preserved off-wiki. I had the impression, though, that there were other concerns, too, including notability (and I wonder whether that's the source of the less than impressive sourcing). Who would we ask who's still active and familiar with the Billy Hathorn case? The community ban case was mostly about his socking. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I am (or was) moderately familiar with Hathorn and his MO. Participants in this discussion in 2015, which it seems I started, include most of the "copyright admins" active at that time, most of whom are still around, and most or all of whom know more about him than I do. As I recall, the concerns were indeed not only about the copyvios and how the socking made them harder to trace, but also about notability; I also recall sourcing problems such as extensive use of those pay-to-publish 'obituaries' written by family or friends. Note to Adam Cuerden: the articles aren't exactly a bunch of articles he ruined – the pages that are being laboriously worked through at WP:CP a handful at a time are pages that he created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There may be some notability issues, but the ones I have restored have specifically been to fill redlinked gaps—one was a federal judge, another an attorney general of the state, some others were state supreme court justices. BD2412 T 22:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds great, and you've clearly been carefully choosing which ones to recreate. You've even been prioritizing material other editors added. But MATF can't see who added what for the articles that have already been deleted, and doesn't appear to be so discerning. It's possible that I'm misremembering the discussions about Billy Hathorn, or that consensus has shifted, since Premeditated Chaos says that state legislators pass notability. But if I'm not, indiscriminate recreation of Billy Hathorn articles is a problem beyond the copyvio problems and the problems of English and accuracy highlighted above, and an additional reason to set these articles aside for specific scrutiny. (A couple of us just worked on Kenneth Nix. Even though this is another Republican, he was chief justice of the state superior court as well as having served in the state senate for 10 years. Undoubtedly notable, and I found no evidence of a deleted article. However, despite MATF having access to newspapers.com, I found the article similarly shallowly referenced, with no news coverage of any of the elections and missing not only all obituaries other than legacy.com (there are at least 2), but quite a big story of how his career ended. Which unfortunately was the only stage of that career that newspaper archives I was able to see have preserved. Anyone who's going to work on these state pols, especially if Billy Hathorn originally cranked out an article, which will be heavily dependent on a couple of sources, really needs to be able to beat the bushes and willing to take the time to do so.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for weighing in on the history. That's the one discussion I turned up. I've seen the reliance on family-provided obituaries at Legacy.com plus state database entries in MusicandTelevisionFan's articles, and at both Kenneth Osterberger (resuscitated article) and Kenneth Nix (no evidence I can find of a previous Wikipedia article), the same newspaper had an obituary of its own. That's part of what I mean about MATF working too fast (as Billy Hathorn did, IIRC) or not being very skilled at digging out and using newspaper archive sources for marginally notable figures where there is not likely to be another extended biography sitting there at the top of the internet search results. Even if consensus has changed about state politicians, it looks as if MATF is just following Hathorn's shallow process. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the final outcome of this discussion will be, but one thing I'm sure of: MATF should not work on copyvio matters, much less CCI rewrites, without showing a much better understanding of the problem of close paraphrasing. The active partial block from mainspace doesn't prevent this, as rewrites are (curiously) done in talk-space. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with the Hathorn back story, but while writing Rubel Phillips I get the impression that his first write of that article was essentially a copyvio of himself from an article he (probably) wrote in a history journal I consulted. Hathorn now apparently edits on Conservapedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time in 2016 tracking and blocking new Billy Hathorn socks. As others have noted, sourcing was frequently deceptive (i.e., sources only backed a small portion of the material added) and the bar for notability was quite low (mayors of very small towns in Louisiana, unelected candidates in the southern United States, ranchers, etc). I'd strongly support imposing a wider prohibition of the systematic recreation of those articles. I see no issues with BD2412's judicious recreations based on redlinks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In view of more recent articles like Kenneth Nix, with no discernible Billy Hathorn antecedents but very similar at creation to those MusicandTelevisionFan has recreated from Hathorn's work, I think MATF needs to stop creating biographies. Whether they're getting the article topics from a list somewhere or are just using Hathorn articles as a model, they evidently aren't capable of writing good enough prose without either over-close paraphrasing or inaccuracies, and are replicating Hathorn's shallow research and to some extent his skewed view of notability. Whereas the non-biography articles they previously wrote, while stubs, were of acceptable quality; remember, experienced editors recommended them for autopatrol based on that earlier work. They haven't edited since their response to my saying that on their talk page on the 14th. But I want to emphasize on their behalf that it's the biographies that have raised questions and require examination and clean-up work. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe and autopatrol

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

---

So far, we've had two of Joe Roe's autopatroller grants revoked. Should there be a review of other autopatroller grants by Joe to check for further problematic autopatrollers? The very nature of the permission allows bad autopatrolled edits to slip away more easily unless direct investigations are done. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Joe Roe can be faulted in this case; as noted above by others, MTAF was writing a very different kind of articles before getting autopatrol, which didn't reveal the writing problem. Also they were recommended for the right by two very experienced Wikipedians. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that blaming Joe Roe is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 13 November 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.

Unfair Unblock. Abiogenesis Scientifically Corrected

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 was blocked by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Widr for an edit I made on the Abiogenesis page. You can check my talk page: I was asked to provide a source for my change, I did, and then Ithe change was still removed. I was correct. I supplied the source. They changed the edit, and did not supply a source, their own requirement, to make the change. They changed abiogenesis of their own want, without documentation. You can even see attitude from someone on my talk page. I left a notice on Widr's talk. I don't think I added the squiggle lines. I don't know tech that well. I have done everything asked of me to justify my change, and they do nothing but get to freely change it back to their want, backed by nothing at all. Please help. Unblock me if you could, but make the correct change on abiogenesis by adding "other" before "nonscientific worldviews see...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchlumins (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You were blocked from that article for determined edit-warring. You don't get to do that. I endorse Widr's action. Get consensus on the talkpage instead of edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Pitchlumins. You readily admit above that I don't know tech that well. You are correct on that single point. You created an incorrectly formatted "reference" lacking the basic bibliographic details and inserted it into the wrong place in the article. Despite this being explained to you by several other editors, you persisted. Making a big mistake once or even twice can be forgiven but you made these incompetent edits nine times and would not stop even after being told repeatedly that your edits were bad. That is indisputably edit warring and I certainly oppose unblocking you from that article, at least until you acknowledge that what you did was both wrong and disruptive. I have no comment at this time about the underlying content dispute, because this noticeboard is not the right place for that discussion. But I can assure you that if you continue with the same behavior, an indefinite block from the entire encyclopedia is a real possibility. Please rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Beyond the other advice above, there's a useful bit of Wiki etiquette/procedure you could learn, which is this: even if you're totally, utterly, absolutely convinced that you're Right and everyone else is Wrong? The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus goes against you, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. The world will not collapse into ignorant ruin if the thirteen words you yearn to push into this single one of the 6.5 million articles on the English Wikipedia fails to make it in. Really it won't; trust me on this one. Ravenswing 04:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:WARRING, WP:CONSENSUS, misinformation in Edit Summaries

• Imam Shamil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reiner Gavriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HamzatCan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User:Reiner Gavriel

User:Reiner Gavriel tries to remove sources from the article Imam_Shamil, in the edits: edit, edit, edit. In the description of edits editor refers to a consensus reached more than 1.5 years ago, but when scrutinized, it turned out the editor breaks this consensus himself (edit), by wiping out the sources entirely. Also, instead of providing proofs the editor just throws bold claims and untrue statements in edit summaries. After detailed analysis of his claims and checking sources, I gave the editor arguments on discussion page, this edit and the two following, including quotes of his own words contradicting his current behavior. The editor ignored questions, continued WP:WAR, breaking consensus version again [5], and throwing misinformation in edit summaries about some other non-existing "consensus". And only after breaking consensus once more in this edit, the editor answerd on discussion page, again not addressing the questions raised, but just throwing accusations at me this time, the edit. Also, looking at the history of the editor, it seems he only appear on Wikipedia for Edit wars in topics related to the North Caucasus, for the last few years at least, always throwing accusations of nationalism to any opponent. Kindly asking to analyze the matter and address the strange behavior of the party.--HamzatCan (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: Also, just noticed, there is a suspicios IP editor, vandalising the article in the exact same way and days, and leaving summary with the same accussations, edit.--HamzatCan (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• So, basically, on 25 October the article was semi-protected because a number of IPs were edit-warring. Now the article is protected, a number of confirmed accounts are edit-warring. Guess what? I've fully protected the article. Get thee to the talk page, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• The prior ANI link may be consulted to view the relevant SPIs. Nationalist disputes in the Caucasus often lead to sockpuppetry. Imam Shamil was a famous man who was 'leader of Caucasian resistance to Imperial Russia in the 1800s'. Various national groups such as the Kumyks like to claim him as one of their own, and the evidence for him being Kumyk is often hard to understand or in non-English sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston So the facts are.

• In the sources it is claimed that Shamil's ancestor was a Kumyk, not himself.
• Sources are valid, I gave them here in the edit with pages and translations and links. they are also valid in Russian wiki, it seems even protected against vandalism.
• The editor claimed at the time that he " have proposed adding a new section about theories of his ancestry, including the Kumyk one" (edit).
• In the article the consensus text was: "there are also sources who say that he has a paternal Kumyk lineage". Not that he was a Kumyk, again. The line was added by my fellow Turkish Adigha, not a Kumyk, who was a part of that discussion long ago.
• The consensus existed for more than a year and reflected the opinion of those who somehow reached it.
• In addition to the 3 sources I gave in the edit above, in the article there were 4 more sources (with excessive citation template btw), Russian and Turkish.
• None of the sources come from "Kumyk nationalists". Yet the editor claims in every edit now they are. You also see it and repeat the same. Look at the quotes of the editor: "Widely accepted by Kumyk nationalists" (previos edit), "removed weak.. and nationalist narrative" (edit) (edit). Which narrative is Kumy? What are the weaknesses of those sources? Is Russian wiki controlled by "Kumyk nationalists"? Also, is claiming in every edit "nationalists, nationalists" a way to present the argument? Why the discussions ended in accusations and aggression by the editor?

It seems even like a definition of smth very close to vandalism. And it is accompanied by misrepresentation of the Edit summaries every single time, WP:WARRING, absolute absence of counteragruments and unethical behavior. Please now tell me where I'm wrong in my claims, and why?--HamzatCan (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Update. One more wiped out source found while going even a bit deeper. The sources and translation are in edit.--HamzatCan (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hostility and threats of edit war from User:Mehediabedin

I received this talk page message from User:Mehediabedin in which he admits that my drafting of the lede in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is "better" but he still wants to revert because he fears future edit wars. In Talk:Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, he attempted to gain consensus for his changes but no consensus has emerged. While I assume WP:good faith on his part, I am afraid he is pushing WP:BIAS, WP:Fringe theories and inaccurate edits. His reluctance to understand disproven, discredited and refuted claims on Mujib frankly merits a restriction. Is a topic ban possible for one article? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I also received a barnstar from this user for working on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I've tried to explain to him about historical inaccuracies but he is not listening. His proposed lede will end up as a Bengali version of WP:PUFF, with elements of WP:Fringe theories and WP:BIAS.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico, read the instructions at the top of this page. You are required to notify Mehediabedin of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have notified Mehediabedin. Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I cannot find any edits by Mehediabedin that I would consider "hostile". The discussion at Talk:Sheikh_Mujibur_Rahman#About_the_lead_section appears to be active and civil. This appears to be a content dispute that should be worked out on the article's talk page; if that fails, as Mehediabedin has suggested, you can try WP:DRN. I don't see any behavioral issues that require administrator intervention. Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Schazjmd: Thank you for notifying me. Honestly, I want to say is I was never hostile towards any user in Wikipedia. The thing started with a dispute in Talk:Economy_of_Bangladesh#Gulshan_skyline, when he (who accusing me) and another user User:AMomen88 got into edit war for the photo of the infobox. Solomon mentioned me to solved the dispute and I gave my opinion that his photo was unsuitable. But he didn’t want to accept that. In the talk page you will see that he was trying accusing us and badmouthing us (especially when he said Momen a "Monster" and accused me of being politically motivated in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, although he couldn’t point how my edits were politically motivated. Then I submitted the issue in here and another volunteer chose better photo for the article, thanks to him. In another article (see here). He and several got into edit war for the lead section. I went there to resolve and proposed new lead section which was opened for discussion. Some users liked the idea lead section and a user liked my lead section. Then again Solomon came to showed faults in the article and I fixed them. He then doubt that Mujib wasn’t' in Kolkata before partition and he told me indirectly that I am lacking in history knowledge and I should not edit the page. But in replay I showed sources that Mujib was in Kolkata even after partition. In reply he didn’t said anything. So I thought that he has no objection and changed the articles' lead section. But he reverted my action showing some strange reasons. He wrote that "he left ML to form AML. you are promoting a revisionist version of history with little credibility." But it is not correct historically because he was first dismissed from ML, I wrote "Mujib joined the newly created Awami League" that wasn’t mean that he didn’t create AL (but even instead of reverting he could edit this to remove the issue). so I am not promoting revisionist version of history here. He said that "the previous one was better." If is this the case then why didn’t he said that earlier in the talk page? And instead of reverting my action he could propose edits to make the lead section better but he didn’t. He also said that "there is no consensus in favor of your edits". For Bangladesh related edits we can't get consensus easily because the Bangladeshi Wikipedians aren't so interested in to give consensus or discussion. But they didn’t give consensus that doesn’t mean that they aren't agree with my edit. After his revert I asked him in the article's talk page but didn’t answer. Also he can't revert my action saying there are no consensus (see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"). He already created unhealthy environment in Wikipedia and said people hurtful things and accusing without proof. After all that happened I understood that he intentionally ignoring me (no that he felt insecure or felt harmed, he had no interest to cooperate, but when I will edit the article to change the lead article, he will revert again). That's why I request help of a user. Today I thought I would submit the issue in WP:DRN but I didn’t think that he would submit this here instead of discuss with me. If you investigate then you will understand that his is being personal. I sent a message his talk page (here) and he didn’t replied even. I gave him wiki award but he removed it. It is clear that what he did from start was because he sees his relationship with me as a enemy. And that's why I suspect the whole process can be his part of game because he is taking it personally. Not cooperating, going edit war and accusing others all are his deed. I request admins to take necessary steps. Its not that you have to ban him. I just to want to edit the article to replace with new lead section (and it is clear that my proposed lead section has not historical error) because if I don't do that edit war will happen again. But he is not let me do that. Mehedi Abedin 08:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also notice that he didn’t notified about this complaint to me. So it is possible that he doesn’t like me personally, it can be equally true for this complaint. Mehedi Abedin 08:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I would assume a longstanding editor like Mehediabedin should be an expert in dealing with disputes. Instead, I had to tell him to take our earlier dispute to DRN where it was resolved. On this article, it's like I'm talking to a wall. He wants me to compromise but he won't budge for even an inch. Its not about me compromising. It's about whether he wants to compromise on simple, well-regarded facts of history. To give one example, his proposed edits will give the impression that the Dominion of Pakistan existed between 1947 and 1971. The truth is that the dominion with Queen Elizabeth II existed till 1956, following which Pakistan became a republic. Bangladesh separated from Pakistan during the republican period and after two constitutions and two periods of martial law. These things are quite normal to understand from a Bangladeshi vantage point. I'm amazed that a longstanding editor like Mehediabedin cannot even grasp these basic facts. Wikipedia needs professors, academics and experts to improve some Bangladesh content; not people who are gaming the system to promote their partisan agendas. This has been going on for so long on Wikipedia concerning Bangladesh that it's depressing. It is detrimental to everyone's interests.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What you said is strange, because you said "Dominion of Pakistan existed between 1947 and 1971. The truth is that the dominion with Queen Elizabeth II existed till 1956, following which Pakistan became a republic". I told earlier that if you had objection then you could tell me then I would fix that. In the talk page I created the edited proposed lead section for that so that anyone can edit. "Wikipedia needs professors, academics and experts to improve some Bangladesh content; not people who are gaming the system to promote their partisan agendas" - first prove that I have any political agenda instead of giving baseless accusations. "Wikipedia needs professors, academics and experts to improve some Bangladesh content" - yes of course, but also we need users who doesn’t accuse users unnecessarily and we need users who doesn’t ignore message of others. Also you didn’t pointed the dominion issue in talk page, but when I gave proof that he came to East Bengal after partition you didn’t answer. So what does mean "it's like I'm talking to a wall" here? If you gave your concern I fixed them, I gave proof that you were wrong and you ignored my messages. And about the Dominion of Pakistan issue, anyone can go into the article of Dominion of Pakistan and get to know that it became Islamic Republic of Pakistan later. Or even you could inform (which you didn’t) and I could write that "Dominion of Pakistan, which became Islamic Republic of Pakistan later". Who is being political here? No one. Writing Dominion of Pakistan is political agenda? I don't think so. Anyway, you didn’t cleared the things I described about your behavior in the talk pages. You just telling what you want to say. But you didn’t answered my point and softly ignored them. Giving me TBAN or BAN on specific article would not be a right choice. Because - I didn’t revert or removed his edit for the article and mentioned him in talk page to resolve, I always create articles on Bangladesh and Bangladeshi culture and revert unconstructive edits or spam, I am always civil and respectful to other editors, I never get in any edit war, and there are more. So I request admins to understand the situation carefully. Mehedi Abedin 11:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Cang1988 creating obviously inflammatory userboxes

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.

---

Cang1988 (talk · contribs)

This user created three inflammatory userboxes (one supporting Donald Trump, one supporting the Uyghur genocide and one supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine). Clearly, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As I typed this, they created two more userboxes: one supporting Holocaust denial and one supporting racial segregation. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

i was just about to say that :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 23:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:51, 18 November 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.

Continued disruptive editing by User:Krishna padakamala das, unresponsive to talk page messages

See their contribs - pattern is adding unsourced text with poor grammar, or ungrammatical text which repeats information already in the article, repeatedly re-adding this when reverted, ignoring edit summaries, ignoring talk page warnings, etc.

I was not sure if this should go on AIV since it's arguably not vandalism but someone acting in good faith who does not understand how to contribute. Please let me know if I should take this kind of thing there in the future. CharredShorthand (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. El_C 22:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspect; user related to political party and involved in promoting party ideology

I suspect More eminence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in promoting Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) political party idiology, this user did 160+ edits on wiki , everything is related to this party idiology, he also received warning notice from multiple users, he also involved in multiple copyright violations, Pages he actively involved is Belgaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:More eminence#Indefinite block. El_C 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, BLPPRIMARY violations

• 67.84.178.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This IP editor has been making edits with such summaries as "added actual middle name and DOB from public records". I don't know the truth of this summary, and they don't seem to bother actually inserting the public records they claim to have found, but beyond inserting unsourced contentious information in numerous BLPs, if their edit summary is accurate then WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies and there's gonna be a lot of cleanup in order for us after they're blocked. IP has been adequately warned so I'm coming straight here to ANI for action.

Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for pretty much the same duration as they've spent adding unsourced bio statistics to articles with a note that they can be unblocked when they demonstrate an understanding of reliable sources and WP:BLP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thesussyboy500

Threatening post made in reply to Cluebot [6]. Could also be considered an attempt to scam. Perhaps he is unaware it is a bot. Styx & Stones (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Massive amounts of unsourced content at Dassel, Minnesota, et al

It started with a quick look at the history section, a large unsourced block added in one swoop. Then I noted that 47.12.60.39 (talk · contribs) had done this with multiple articles on Minnesota towns. It could take some time to go back and revert all of them, and it's likely that these texts were copied from somewhere, though I haven't located the source(s). Any assistance will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the unsourced additions to Minnesota towns have already been reverted by the nominator and others, but they still need to be checked for copyright violations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I got the last one, at Mrs. Stewart's Bluing from 2018. Not having edited since 2021, this report is technically stale, but can be valid as a chronic issue. The MN towns were edited in a few days in August 2019, but there were similar unsourced edits as early as 2018 and as late as 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, LaundryPizza03. At this point, I don't expect any action re: the long dormant IP. Rather, I was curious whether anyone could find source(s) for the content, and rev/delete any copyright infringement. Also I like to be utterly transparent when reverting large passages from many articles; it's not uncommon for passing editors to mistake such reversions for vandalism, especially coming from an IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe at least some of the material comes from a local-history book called Terry Tales, by Terry R. Shaw, which appears to be heavily excerpted—maybe serially published—on Old Litchfield Minnesota & Meeker County. I don’t have a Facebook account, so can’t browse the group myself, but I got some search results pointing in that direction.—Odysseus1479 21:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Odysseus1479, I found that too, yesterday, but didn't follow it far enough to determine what may have been copied. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lemchastain: Continued ignorance of talk page conventions

Lemchastain (talk | contribs) continually violates talk page conventions by making sloppy posts to Talk:Pythagorean triple, and now to the Pythagorean triple article, mostly his personal comments about unpublished papers. For example, [7], [8], [9]. He has been advised several times about talk page guidelines, but has been ignoring those suggestions. His posts do not appear to be deliberate vandalism, but perhaps some administrators should try to get his attention.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Igaming 13

Igaming 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Igaming 13 joined on 19 October 2022. Since then, they have created, moved, and redirected a slew of radio-related articles. Also been blocked once before. As of this edit, RT Broadcast Specialists, DYLG-FM, DYCE-FM, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, DWRJ, and Rajah Brodcasting Network were all created by them.

ATM, they are not responding to talk page, which I suspect is due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I suspect a misguided effort (WP:NOTDATABASE) or WP:NOTHERE. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for two weeks by Quarl. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The user is notorious for adding irrelevant formats and hoax info to various radio station articles, such as DXYP and DXJL. He even ignored the hidden messages in those articles. Prior to having his own account, he edited such articles under these IP addresses:

• Special:Contributions/136.158.65.144
• Special:Contributions/136.158.65.204

He was blocked twice: the first being 31 hours, and the second being 2 weeks. It'd make more sense if his recent block would last for a month or two. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Tedickey by User:Alexander Davronov

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.

---

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

Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

I made a change to {{Unix commands}} template and noted that User:Tedickey has made a lot of reverts (my last edit as well) over the last 4 years so I tried to discuss it on [Nov 10, 2022, 10:25] suggesting to rename the template in order to stop confusing people and all of sudden they went on my contribs ridiculously tagging (see links above) recently added content. In one reply at that discussion they suggested I rework my reply so that they are not a personal attack ([Nov 14, 2022, 09:19]). They also left a warning [Nov 18, 2022, 20:33] on my TP without any context pazzling me even more. I strongly suspect that behavior is close to WP:HOUND so I request to warn editor for the god sake.

ANI NOTICE

[Nov 19, 2022, 12:53]

Previous attempts to discuss behavior

My attempt was reverted (WP:SOMTP?):
Nov 17, 2022, 20:00 - «revert - use topic discussion page for discussing improvements»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I became aware of this discussion from following a 3O request, which I have commented on here. Commenting on Ncurses specifically I don't think this is an example of them following you to another page through your contribs, because they have edited that page previously and your edit changed the developer parameter from listing only Thomas E. Dickey to Thomas E. Dickey plus several others, which User:Tedickey then tagged. Given the name of the developer and the name of the editor there's something there, but I don't think that specific page is evidence of WP:HOUND. The editor also has edits to Konsole going back to 2008 and to xterm from 2006, so given how related all those topic are to one another I think this may just be an example of noticing edits on the watchlist and addressing them as they pop up, because while Portable Compiled Format wasn't an article they had previously edited, the interaction timeline doesn't suggest WP:HOUND but rather two editors editing a series of related articles and disagreeing with each other. The potential COI is worth noting, but that's a different issue altogether. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I wouldn't care if they didn't tag exactly the sentences I've added. I still doubt that they came over from a watchlist. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:50, 20 November 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.

Need an admin to handle a webhost IP unblock

Please see unblock request at the bottom of User_talk:Mike_Christie. The request looks to be in order but I have no experience dealing with this type of block. Could an admin who does please take a look. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, WP:IPBE granted after a quick check. Thanks for pointing it out, Newyorkbrad. --Yamla (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That was PDQ. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent BLP issues and possible defamation at Robert R. Reisz

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.

---

We need more eyes here, and probably some page protection and/or rev/deletion. The accusations appear to go back months. Even if properly sourced, there are WP:BLP concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The correct place to report this is WP:BLPN or WP:RfPP. There is currently no serious ongoing disruption to the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an ongoing disruption, which is why I opened a report here. As explained, this is also a long term BLP issue that may merit rev/deletion by an administrator. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "ongoing disruption" means. Two users added the allegations to the article several hours apart, and were each reverted. Neither attempted to edit war the allegations back into the article. That is not "ongoing disruption". This is what WP:BLPN is for, not ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See [10], as well as a series of poorly sourced edits prior to today's. As for the most recent edits, the claims may be supported by a WP:RELIABLE, but the wording is clearly pointed [11]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And this is the third time I've stated something clear: there appears to be defamatory content, going back several months, that may merit rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Those edits are from June, nearly six months ago, and were promptly reverted at the time. If he's been found guilty by the university, as Varsity claims [12], then I don't see how the allegations are defamatory. I've gone ahead and created a thread at BLPN, which was the appropriate and correct venue for this issue Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_R._Reisz. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've commented there. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 22:22, 21 November 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.

216.x editor 'translating' from Serbian wiki now also making copyright violations

So apparently the situation originally described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x has not improved substantially, in fact it deteriorated into copyright violations as described at User talk:216.174.95.81#Wikipedia and copyright. The previous 6 month ban from article space on that ISP has not apparently helped - the drafts haven't gotten much better, nor has there been any communication with the user (let alone actual collaboration). Does anyone mind escalating this into a ban on all namespaces? ObPing @DanCherek @Diannaa @S0091 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a sitewide block is a good idea given the continued copyright issues, but I'm not very good at figuring out the best IP range(s) for situations like these. DanCherek (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The range that was previously blocked was 216.174.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Blocked for 6 months from April to October 2022.) I don't think anyone else is using this range right now. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Maliner false info

On 19 Nov, I removed some information from the Barelvi article. I removed a lengthy paragraph which rambles on about the history of Sufism in Bangladesh, with no mention of Barelvi in either the paragraph nor the sources - a clear deviation from the article focus. Some of the section also contained false references which I removed. User:Maliner has begun edit warring and accusing me of pushing POV despite me not expressing any POV in the article. All I have done is removed irrelevant and falsely sourced information. Maliner refused to reply to my message on my talk page, and simply accuses me of being wrong without opening up discussion or addressing the issues that I have. SalamAlayka (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhode Island IP range has been conflating EMI and Capitol Records

• 2600:8805:A888:6F00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For one month an editor in Rhode Island has been adding EMI and/or Capitol Records to unrelated or only peripherally related music articles.[13][14] They are driving a drawn-out edit war at the Halsey song "So Good". They are uncommunicative, having never used a talk page. Can we do something to rein in the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extreme uncivil by ItzRicoHenry

This user seems to be trying to create a new article related to Bangladesh Air Force Shaheen College, but they keep moving it and then editing instead of starting a different article. I've reverted the move twice and tried to explain on their talk page, which lead to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ItzRicoHenry abandoned the draft they were writing after they were repeatedly told on -en-help that their draft was pretty much never going to be accepted. My guess is that their behaviour now is an attempt to get it into mainspace somehow. I've undone their latest edits and move and edited the redirect to make it impossible for them to try and move it back. I suspect the user is a mercenary; in any event they're not interested in anything except pushing the specific college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the accidental revert. I have no idea how that happened. The only thing I can think of is that after an edit conflict warning when I did a browser back and clicked on edit it reloaded a specific version for some reason.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed the user has been blocked, but TPA should be removed as well. They have made ~8 edits there since their block, all of which are unconstructive. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to say they need indef'd. Their behaviour is indistinguishable from an incompetent mercenary editor and they seem either unable or unwilling to answer direct questions with anything other than non-sequiturs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Yae4

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE behaviors, sadly. Edits to GrapheneOS could be seen as dishonest at worst and include original research by extrapolation of sources and presumptions. Yae4's contributions are a common source of complaints by other editors at Talk:GrapheneOS. Wikipedia:POV railroad and/or WP:FRUSTRATE.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106#User:Yae4, brought by 84.250.14.116 (talk)
• GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Diff/1122406256 – after being told his matter is off-topic for article talk, Yae4 then suggested eliminating other editors (whom have disagreed with Yae4) by means of requesting extended page protection for the article.
• Talk:GrapheneOS#Vice Motherboard source on ANOM involvement (since 3 November 2022)

84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Looks like that article has attracted a good deal of unregistered and SPA attention, and I can't quite tell who's in the wrong in terms of behavior (Yae4 is edit warring, but it's hard to contend with lots of edits from newish accounts. Yae4's most recent edits removing content sourced just to Twitter and Github seem good to me, and it looks like most of the dispute is centered on this material. If you want an outside opinion, I say remove it altogether. It's a source that basically says "some people said ANOM used GrapheneOS; doesn't look like that's true". If lots of sources made the connection, then ok, but why include something that ultimately isn't about the subject, right? Just remove it altogether. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Contributions tell the tale:

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

For a while I've known 84.250.14.116 to be a nearly Single Purpose IP, mostly at GrapheneOS.

My perspective on their edit and discussion behavior solidified when observing Bbb23 identify it as "trolling"[15] and "incredible clutter" [16]

As for GrapheneOS, it has issues with WP:DUE (among other things), seeing how a few sources are cited 2 to 5 times, and others are cited only once. Most sources are obscure, but have been cited to "support" cherry picked statements. "There is no consensus on the reliability" of the Vice (Motherboard) source - subject of recent dispute - but it has the distinction of at least being on WP:RSP, unlike most sources of the article (Adding: which I was instrumental in originally getting published, and included in DYK). -- Yae4 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User শাহরিয়ার হাসান

শাহরিয়ার হাসান (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be wp:NOTHERE.

• On 21 November 2022, moved Persecution of Hindus to User:Sag@ @dlof 333 (a non-existant account) here, while deleting large blocks of content. I restored the content and moved the page back. I added db-u2 to User:Sag@ @dlof 333.
• On 15 September 2022, শাহরিয়ার হাসান created user:শাহরিয়ার হাসান filled in a infobox about a cricket player - one citation, no other content. On 21 November 2022, moved user:শাহরিয়ার হাসান to MSR666, then replaced the content with a rather cryptic sentence.
• On 10 September 2022 deleted a section from Cantonment w/o comment. I restored.
• On 14 July 2022, on Meghalaya twice deleted section "Illegal immigration", replacing it with an unsourced section "Persecution of Indian Government". [1] [2] Both were reverted.

Going through শাহরিয়ার হাসান's edits, all have been reverted other than maybe their first edit that hasn't been reverted or I find suspect. I don't think শাহরিয়ার হাসান should be editing on Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In need of an indefinite cessation of editing privilieges. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Before I saw this report I had already decided to indefinitely block the account. Its history consists entirely of disruptive and obstructive editing of various kinds. JBW (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to get the point

There has been an ongoing discussion for the better part of 5 months where Master Editor 10 (talk · contribs · email) and 68.14.208.126 (talk · contribs · email) WP:refuses or fails to "get the point". The editors have been made aware of multiple guidelines and essasy, multiple times. Yet they continue to make the same points 5 months apart and either can't or won't listen to editors telling them to WP:let it go, wasting everyone's time. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Account blocked 1mo and IP blocked 6mo for socking, per an SPI. No comment on if further sanctions are warranted; I went with 1mo and not indef because they're a new user and have made constructive edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Schizoid personality disorder

An IP user has been improving the article for the last month(ish) or so but today I was surprised to see some combative contributions (edit warring) on the article's talk page. As of right now, the person has been given a level four warning for removing other editor's comments:

• Talk:Schizoid personality disorder: Revision history
• 184.151.246.154 (talk · contribs)

Dawnseeker2000 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say their latest edit summary is a personal attack. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have been bouncing around the range 184.151.246.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a few months and are not afraid of salty language "Vandalism erasure: who would want to join your stupid website as a long-term user?" "imbecile" "mongolian idiocy" - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and just wanted to say out loud that the person claims to be a clinician, other personnel, or patient at a mental health facility, so that's interesting. And they do seem to know quite a bit on the topic and have been uncontested in their changes. I have seen them as improvements and had considered thanking them on one of their talk pages. So I'm definitely not here to "get them" or drag them through any sort of bureaucratic mess, but the situation did escalate with MrOllie's restoration of the talk page comments and thought it reasonable to bring here. The gentleman/woman from the health care clinic is very much welcome to share what they're thinking/feeling here. Dawnseeker2000 03:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary linking to mongolian idiocy, alone, should result in a sitewide block for the range. Levivich (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk page deletions continue as this thread is open. - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If this were an editor with an account, making constructive edits but then also calling people things like "bitch cunt fag", I'd indef but be open to an unblock if they apologized. So I've done that here, except "indef" means 2 months, since that's how long it's definitely been this person on the /24. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see SarekOfVulcan went for a week on the single IP just as I went for 2 months on the /24. Does what I said on the IP's talk work for you, Sarek? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. If they can work within norms, no reason not to keep them around. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues

• Simulaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User failing to acknowledge/heed discussions and warnings about their editing, particularly WP:SYNTH, and refusal to engage other editors and gain WP:CONSENSUS for their changes.

Inspired by today's improper removal of content on the Melbourne article ([17], [18], [19]), I've decided to put up.

Since April 2022, Simulaun has been engaged in what can only be described as a narrow-focused campaign to either remove or muddy the waters re the Indigenous Australian names of cities in Australia, particularly Melbourne. I don't know their motivations, but it's pretty clear to anyone that they are removing content that they just don't like and replacing it with poorly sourced -- or outright synthesis of published material. Ironically, a section on Talk:Melbourne entitled "wikipedia:Activist attempts to rename Australian towns and cities" might offer a little bit of an explanation behind Simulaun's editing (seeing as they do not seem keen on expanding when challenged), particularly their comment: "The same cultural appropriation is taking place for the city of Perth, which is now being referred to by some groups as "Big Swamp" in Noongar language." (diff).

A current favourite of Simulaun's has been to add SYNTH material to Melbourne re its Indigenous name, ignoring the need for consensus. The user will replace an existing passage with a synthesis of a LonelyPlanet source and others, making the misleading claim that the source is speaking for Melbourne (it's not). The editor has been warned about this, as will be expanded upon later. Examples:

• Sept. 20 (reverted) – SYNTH, WP:COPYVIO, ignores consensus
• Sept. 26 (reverted) – SYNTH, COPYVIO, ignores consensus
• Oct. 15 (reverted) – SYNTH, unreliable source per WP:RSP, ignores consensus
• Oct. 17 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Oct. 18 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 2 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 5 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 9 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 10 (reverted) – removal of sourced content

Simulaun, when challenged about their editing, has repeatedly chosen to outright ignore or defend their edits (and then proceed to do the exact same thing they've been accused of doing). Examples:

• Apr. 24: The Logical Positivist asked Simlaun to stop adding original research to the Rottnest Island article. No response. On the article's talk page, Mitch Ames had even previously asked Simulaun to stop adding factual errors/OR to article [20]. No response.
• Apr. 25: I cautioned Simulaun for removal of content on Melbourne and to gain consensus for their edits. No response.
• Jul. 7: Padgriffin warned Simulaun for adding original research to Sydney. Simulaun defended adding original research and has continued to add OR.
• Sept. 20: I asked Simulaun to provide diffs of where on Talk:Melbourne consensus exists for their content change as they incorrectly claimed. They did not provide those diffs as can be seen.
• Sept. 25: Poketama too, told Simulaun that their content changes to Melbourne contained SYNTH.
• Oct. 15: I cautioned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
• Oct. 19: I warned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
• Nov. 2: I gave a final warning to Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Since then, they've continuously added the same SYNTH bypassing the need for consensus here and here, having been reverted by Gracchus250 and Meters, respectively, citing the same issues in their edit summaries.

Judging from the frequency of their edits, I think they will just keep edit warring, not listening, bypassing the need for consensus, and of course, adding SYNTH to articles. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have repeatedly addressed your concerns on WP:Talk regarding WP:Melbourne. Posted NPOV, NOR, sourced sentences with the addition that anyone should feel free to alter the wording if it was not to their liking (=consensus by default, unless LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia are censored sources). Simulaun (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This user's IDHT behavior has gone on for long enough. I would personally propose, at minimum, a TBAN from Australian-geography related articles for them, considering that they've persistently engaged in this type of behavior and seemingly refuse to follow WP:CON. I would support harsher sanctions but it's a start. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I asked you for input regarding contributions to WP in July of 2022. Still no reply. Simulaun (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Support for a TBAN here. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I was notified to comment on here. This user has been mostly a nuisance but I have looked at their contributions page a few times and contemplated what value they were bringing. I remember reading a Wiki policy which I dont have on hand that says essentially a users contributions should not entirely be negative and deletionist. Besides their edits on Rottnest, theyve never actually added anything to Wikipedia and they dont listen to argument, policy or consensus. Due to their relatively infrequent edits theyve not been a huge problem to revert, but its pretty clear to me their edits are solely bad faith vandalism that wastes users time and may be harder to catch on smaller articles. Poketama (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How is adding information from LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia 'deletionist'? Also, you appear to be saying that adding quotes from Aboriginal Elders is 'entirely negative' and/or 'bad faith vandalism'? When you say 'a nuissance' do you perhaps mean 'inconvenient truth'? Simulaun (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I note that on Oct. 17 that the same unfounded claims that had to be previously removed from the Rottnest Island page in April were re-added by Simulaun and had to be removed yet again. Their contributions do seem disruptive and they have not been willing to engage on the matters for that page at least when they have been raised with them. The Logical Positivist (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to add a legal reference, which I did. Simulaun (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding in the claim that “Such unoccupied land meets the definition of Terra Nullius (as defined by Emerich de Vattel)" is not providing a reference for the claim - it is the perfect example of 'original research' as you are applying that label to Rottnest without any reliable source backing it up. You would need a source that actually says that Rottnest specifically was classified as Terra Nullius - particularly considering the High Court overturned that concept applying in Australia. The Logical Positivist (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the sentence in question can be construed as OR. I thought it might be acceptable, however, as it is used in a similar manner on another WP page. Simulaun (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinged here. I agree that something needs to be done about the continuing IDHT and SYNTH. A topic ban would work, but perhaps since the editor has never been blocked, perhaps a temporary block would get their attention. Meters (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. This editors contributions seem to almost exclusively focus on the use of SYNTH (or completely unsourced) material to further the goal of reducing Wikipedia's inclusion of Indigenous names. As seen with the edit I reverted on Hobart (diff) on the 24th of September. JTdale 🗩 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

How is deletion of an apparent error SYNTH or unsourced? Also, as you pointed out, multiple editors have sought to correct this apparent nipaluna error, so why are you deleting willy-nilly without discussion or consent? Simulaun (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been discussion. Extensively. See the discussion on WikiProject Australia. JTdale 🗩 10:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have followed some of the discussion. It is not clear to me what the outcome was, but I had the impression that the consensus was dual-naming OK for New Zealand, not OK for Australia. Please let me know if that is incorrect. Simulaun (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• So it's been a couple days, Simulaun has not responded to this nor edited. I'd be keen to hear their thoughts, just as much as I would support a TBAN on Australian-geography related articles as has been suggested by a few editors already. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• @Simulaun: I reverted the massive amount of text you posted to this page. You are welcome to respond to the complaint, but you must make it shorter and readable. In addition, don't refer to yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Noted (response has been shortened and use of 'username:simulaun' (meant for clarity) is no longer used). Simulaun (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Racism against Indigenous Australians, IDHT, and deficient responses at ANI; sounds familiar. Support TBAN from anything related to Australia and indigenous people. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wanna point out that Simulaun has attempted to remove the Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung text from mellohi!'s signature just now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that Simulaun has escalated to vandalising my signature due to it having non-English text is 100% unacceptable. Thanks for whoever reverted that. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies. I assumed it was a (additional) criticism or insult aimed at me in a foreign language. On a side note, if mellohi! is your signature, what are the text before and the symbol(s) after your signature? Simulaun (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  投稿 means contributions, and links to their contributions page. It is very clearly part of their signature. Also editing other people's comments is only allowed in extreme circumstances, see WP:TPO. Further more, I'd probably you know, check instead of just assume all words in languages other than english are insults. This may be English wikipedia but many users here are multilingual and use the same signatures across multiple projects. JTdale 🗩 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly this sort of behavior just gives more credence to support a TBAN or even a CBAN from the project, as this user appears to have no tolerance towards non-English languages and attempts to remove them whenever possible, which paints an extremely problematic picture and makes me question their intentions on the Wiki beyond pushing their agenda. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  It was more the exclamation mark at the end that appeared to indicate it was a statement of sorts (as in 'Fxck!)

  In regard to non-English, Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that Wikipedia articles ought to be written in plain English. My misunderstanding regarding 'Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung etc.' underscores the relevance of this WP rule.

  You appear to be saying that there is a hidden agenda in a near cut-and-paste of LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia. Please explain.

  Lastly, you appear to be against links to a map of Eora, statements by an Aboriginal Elder, and dual-naming of Australian cities. Are you perhaps pushing some sort agenda?

  Simulaun (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  A couple of points:

  1. The MOS for Wikipedia pages does not match what is required for Talk pages. For example a spellling mistake on a talk page does not require fixing but one on Wikipedia pages does.
  2. I am nervous when someone talks of a near cut and paste due to copyright concerns. I would say that your capitalised text below is too close for my liking.
  3. I am concerned about the use of Lonely Planet as a reliable source for this if they say that Tourism Australia selected the name as it is a Government of Council decision. Gusfriend (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  near cut and paste — See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As outlined below, edits were consistently and/or extensively adjusted to take into account WP:talk feedback to reach consensus: 1) Referring to Rottnest Island and no inhabitation for 7000 years, added: “By the time of European exploration in the 1600s the island is thought to have been unoccupied for thousands of years, thus constituting a bona fide Terra Nullius by being uninhabited (terra nullius = unoccupied or uninhabited)”

This resulted in Undid revision 1082603292 “Terra Nullius was a legal principle and not purely a descriptor. A citation that says Rottnest is recognised as being such under law would be necessary to justify its inclusion in this article.”

To address the above objection, reposted: “Such unoccupied land meets the definition of Terra Nullius (as defined by Emerich de Vattel)”.

This resulted in Undid revision 1116596894 “This edit contravenes the WP:NOR policy.”

2) In regard to the word ‘Nipaluna’ for Hobart: Deleted its use as an alternative name for Hobart as “Not supported by official government dual-name records.”

This was reverted because “Persistent vandalism of this page to remove nipaluna by multiple editors. If you have any further debate about this, go to the talk page. It will not be removed without a consensus of editors.”

In light of this objection, started WP:Talk on 28 September: “It has come to my attention that the word 'nipaluna' refers to a location/region that differs greatly from the location of present-day Hobart. These two names (nipaluna and Hobart) should, therefore, not be used interchangeably. This error warrants being corrected. The WP:Hobart page states that "The city lies on country which (sic) was known by (sic) the local Mouheneener people as nipaluna, a name which (sic) includes surrounding features such as kunanyi/Mt. Wellington and timtumili minanya (River Derwent)". Nuennonne/Palawa kani: nipaluna is, therefore, not the same as the city Hobart and should hence not be presented as such (as is presently the case in the first sentence of the WP:Hobart page).

3) Referring to the etymology of the word ‘Narrm’ for Melbourne: (letters/words identical between the WP entry and the source have been capitalized. “Melbourne is sometimes called ‘NAaRM’ (or similar), which is a Boonwurrung word for an area comprising part of the GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT of present-day Melbourne. The process of introducing an indigenous NAMe for a CITy or urban area that DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRITISH COLONIZATION MEANS that An indigenous NAME HAs TO BE CHOSEN. TOURISM AUSTRALIA has selected the Boonwurrung name NARRM. Source (LonelyPlanet, referring to Tourism Australia): “NAMing entire CITies, such as Sydney, which (sic) DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRITISH COLONIZATION as a single entity prior to BRITISH COLONIZATION, MEANS THAT A NAME HAd TO BE CHOSEN that doesn’t always represent the whole GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT.” (accompanied by a map generated by TOURISM AUSTRALIA and reproduced by the LonelyPlanet source indicating the dual name chosen is ‘Melbourne/NARRM’)

This does not appear to be WP:Synthesis (“combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source”).

and “The assignment of Aboriginal names to cities such as Melbourne has been questioned, however. For example, Wurundjeri elder Ian Hunter, who has been involved with Indigenous culture for 30 years, says he’s “never heard of it. It’s something some young people have come up with, I think. How do you have a name for something that doesn’t exist?” Source (3AW693Newstalk): “Under the plan, Melbourne would be given the dual name Naarm. But Wurundjeri elder Ian Hunter, who has been involved with Indigenous culture for 30 years, says he’s “never heard of it”. “It’s something some young people have come up with, I think. How do you have a name for something that doesn’t exist?”

This nearly copy and paste entry led to the following WP:TALK: @Simulaun: is adding content that has been disputed in this talk page, skipping the part about gaining consensus. I've undone their edits and returned the article to its status-quo. Feel free to explain your edits here. Also, a side note, your content made use of content from here -- almost word for word. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The content in question has been discussed and there appears to be ample support (consensus?) on WP:Talk for its inclusion in the article. Furthermore, before reposting, I addressed the concerns raised by providing a broader perspective (from 'Lonelyplanet.com') and additional documentation of Ian Hunter's track record of involvement in Aboriginal culture (see below for more detail). So I am not sure why this information is being censored. Please specify/clarify what concerns remain unaddressed. Previous concerns aired on WP:Talk: Concern 1: The initial edit was considered on WP:Talk to 'probably be a good addition to the article, but it needs a source'. As stated in WP:Talk, the source is 3AW. Additional sources pertaining to the issue more generally, and the quoted individual, have now also been provided. Concern 2: By quoting someone, it was alleged on WP:Talk that the initial entry amounted to a single point of view. As pointed out on WP:Talk, this is not a particularly valid criticism. Moreover, this has now been addressed by presenting the topic more broadly ("The introduction of indigenous names...", as stated in reference by lonelyplanet.com) Concern 3; It was claimed that the quoted individual (Ian Hunter) is non-notable. Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals), this concern has now been addressed by the addition of four additional references documenting significant exposure of this individual's views and activities on public news outlets. Concern 4: It was claimed that the quoted individual cannot have been an 'elder' for 30 years. Although this criticism also appears to lack validity or relevance (e.g., there can be a degree of variation in how one interprets 'being an elder for 30 years'), this concern has also been addressed as the four additional references attest to broad-based recognition of the quoted individual's involvement in Aboriginal culture and their apparent credentials as an Aboriginal 'elder' Simulaun (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Concern 1: an editor made that observation, we're all editors of equal standing. I'm just one editor who disagrees. (Problem with this criticism: disagrees about what?) Concern 2: it's still quoting one person's view (3AW article), you've just conflated it (see original research) to be about every city, even though this Wikipedia article is about one city - Melbourne. The lonelyplanet source is discussing Sydney -- not Melbourne. In fact, the source even clarifies that a name change "doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint". "Doesn't always" = suggests that not all cities encounter this issue, and Melbourne could be one of them, but we don't know that seeing as the source does not reference Melbourne. Also, your copy-and-paste of content from the loneyplanet source, without proper attribution, is a copyright violation. (Problems with this criticism: 1) most sources/citation are from a single person, 2) the source does reference Melbourne/Narrm) Concern 3: "Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals)" - your opinion is not policy. Wikipedia policy can speak for itself, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I've brought up weight issues (specifically giving a false balance) that still stand (ie. if this person is so notable, why doesn't he have an article on Wikipedia?). Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to insignificant views; perhaps in passing, but a viewpoint and a quote? I don't think so. (Problem with this criticism: the source is an Aboriginal Elder who has been featured in numerous news productions) Concern 4: I don't disagree nor agree. I would reiterate that if this person's decades of knowledge are notable, then perhaps it's time he had an article on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) (Problem with this criticism: Ian Stuart’s decades of knowledge are notable, as evidenced by the additional sources provided)

After about a month of no further comments/input for this discussion, reposted the above NPOV, NOR, and properly sourced from the LonelyPlanet source while fully omitting any reference to the contested quote(s) from Aboriginal Elder Ian Stuart. Also specified that other editors should feel free to change any words they objected to (=seeking consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simulaun (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the same wall-of-text you posted earlier, just with the third-person names removed. Not a great look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The way you've presented this post is very difficult to read, as it appears you've copy pasted other editors comments and the entire contents of the talk page here? I think? I'm unclear.

I can only address your argument regarding Hobart. Simply put, it is SYNTH. You are synthesizing an argument based on the idea that historically these names referred to a region, and in modern day, refer to a city instead that only partially includes that region. You are not providing a source that states that nipaluna can only refer to the historic usage.

One name can refer to two different things, in fact this is very common. Hobart refers to both the local government area (which contains just a small fraction of the area), the statistical metropolitan area (which contains more), and the region (which includes the entirety). None of these uses of the name Hobart invalidate its use in other contexts, just as historic use of nipaluna does not invalidate modern use. Further, Wikipedia does not require official government recognition of a name to include it, just evidence of general use. This was provided on the Hobart talk page in February when an anonymous editor attempted to make the exact same edits as you, and you were referred to it later. JTdale 🗩 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Madsol3772

Madsol3772 created a page named Draft:Devon Heaven. It was submitted to AfC, and it was immediately rejected. It was a guide to taking drugs, and I nominated it for speedy deletion per G3 (courtesy ping for deleting sysop @Liz) They came to the help desk, when I first found them. After they tried to say it was for educational purposes, I explained that this was not what we did on Wikipedia, and told them not to do it again. However, they recreated it with the edit summary "do drugs or kill yourself". I have nominated this for speedy deletion per G3 again, but I also decided to bring this here.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

I've given them a short block for recreating this article and ignoring warnings. If they return and continue with this drug promotion, they can be indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Mcmatter this use is trying to remove my admin rights

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

---

my name is isablle i made admin in Oct but the tool never worked. so I asked in teehouse but they user removed it and is trying to erase all evidence up my adminship please block him S3822 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, WP:TROLL, nothing else to add here. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:56, 24 November 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.

Hide this racist edit about Mexicans.

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.

---

Hide these edits: https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/159.148.186.246

https://li.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicane&action=history 182.235.231.66 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the admin noticeboard for the English-language Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia versions are autonomous, so you'll have to ask for it to be dealt with there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 23 November 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.

Netflix producers and scenarists of the "Vikings: Valhala" show have twisted the history of Ukraine.

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.

---

Netflix producers and scenarists of the "Vikings: Valhala" show have twisted the history of Ukraine. They described Yaroslav the Wise as one of the Russian rulers at that time. While, at that time, no Russia (as a state) existed, no Russians as a nation. This man, Yaroslav the Wise, was one of the Rulers in Kyiv Rus, which is totally (critically) different from Russia (origin). What makes such manipulation of the history of Ukraine, especially in such times, irrational, irresponsible and humiliating offend all people of Ukraine!

This show cannot be called historical.

https://twitter.com/NetflixValhalla/status/1594767703230791681 FordiN (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a content issue and should be discussed on the article's talk page. — Czello 12:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. This is straightforward vandalism, and I've blocked the OP as a VOA. They've also used an IP to vandalize the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The show is pretty trash though, I gotta admit. Silverseren^C 14:02, 22 November 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:24.208.219.115 by User:Just Another Cringy Username

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.208.219.115

This IP has made disruptive edits to film articles by writing plot summaries which do not follow the guidelines of WP:FILMPLOT. These edits make the plots overlong and excessively detailed, using colorful, emotional, unencyclopedic language.

Diffs for The Menu: [21]

Diffs for Hail, Caesar!: [22]

Editor was warned for both of these edits. May not be actionable yet, but there's a pattern emerging. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The instructions on the top of this page say "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page". I don't see where you've done that. You and Binksternet have just templated the IP editor without taking the time to explain how to write better plot summaries. You've also immediately reported them to ANI without waiting for any further edits after your warning after an expedited process of only giving two warnings total. Why is this issue so urgent? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet and I have not communicated on this issue. I noticed they had already given a Level II warning, so when the same IP made another ill-conceived edit, I just went up to the next level. As I said, there may not be anything immediately actionable here, but since this IP has a history of making disruptive edits, I thought admins should be made aware. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Commonscity, rapid disruptive page creations and moves

Commonscity (talk · contribs) has been reported at SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi) and I wouldn't have created a report here if it wasn't for the fact that the user has been making a lot of page moves and redirects rather quickly over the last few hours. These include moves of declined drafts to article space [23], [24], [25] (the last two drafts were moves to "alternative" mainspace titles to avoid a salted title); cut&paste recreation of the first of those three after draftification [26]; odd redirects from India related titles to articles about Nepali topics [27], [28]; moving List of chief ministers of Madhesh Province (which already redirected to Chief Minister of Madhesh Province following an AfD discussion) to List of deputy chief ministers of Madhesh Province; moving Chief Minister of Madhesh to Governor of Madhesh Province (not the same office).... Also a few redirects to articles where the redirect title is not mentioned, [29]. Not all the creations / moves / redirects are disruptive, but the user doesn't react to warnings, and just keeps creating pages. --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bonadea, this user needs to be stopped and a lot of their edits need to be reverted. After the above described move, they moved / redirected Chief Minister of Madhesh to Leader of the Opposition in Provincial Assembly of Madhesh Province, which then again was moved / redirected to Governor of Madhesh Province, creating a very unlikely chain and messing up histories. Fram (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:24.208.219.115 by User:Just Another Cringy Username

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.208.219.115

This IP has made disruptive edits to film articles by writing plot summaries which do not follow the guidelines of WP:FILMPLOT. These edits make the plots overlong and excessively detailed, using colorful, emotional, unencyclopedic language.

Diffs for The Menu: [30]

Diffs for Hail, Caesar!: [31]

Editor was warned for both of these edits. May not be actionable yet, but there's a pattern emerging. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The instructions on the top of this page say "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page". I don't see where you've done that. You and Binksternet have just templated the IP editor without taking the time to explain how to write better plot summaries. You've also immediately reported them to ANI without waiting for any further edits after your warning after an expedited process of only giving two warnings total. Why is this issue so urgent? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet and I have not communicated on this issue. I noticed they had already given a Level II warning, so when the same IP made another ill-conceived edit, I just went up to the next level. As I said, there may not be anything immediately actionable here, but since this IP has a history of making disruptive edits, I thought admins should be made aware. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Commonscity, rapid disruptive page creations and moves

Commonscity (talk · contribs) has been reported at SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi) and I wouldn't have created a report here if it wasn't for the fact that the user has been making a lot of page moves and redirects rather quickly over the last few hours. These include moves of declined drafts to article space [32], [33], [34] (the last two drafts were moves to "alternative" mainspace titles to avoid a salted title); cut&paste recreation of the first of those three after draftification [35]; odd redirects from India related titles to articles about Nepali topics [36], [37]; moving List of chief ministers of Madhesh Province (which already redirected to Chief Minister of Madhesh Province following an AfD discussion) to List of deputy chief ministers of Madhesh Province; moving Chief Minister of Madhesh to Governor of Madhesh Province (not the same office).... Also a few redirects to articles where the redirect title is not mentioned, [38]. Not all the creations / moves / redirects are disruptive, but the user doesn't react to warnings, and just keeps creating pages. --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bonadea, this user needs to be stopped and a lot of their edits need to be reverted. After the above described move, they moved / redirected Chief Minister of Madhesh to Leader of the Opposition in Provincial Assembly of Madhesh Province, which then again was moved / redirected to Governor of Madhesh Province, creating a very unlikely chain and messing up histories. Fram (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Block review request by User:Michael.C.Wright

• Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) has had an unblock request pending for some time, on which admins have not reached agreement, so I am bringing it here. I hope that input from a few people will lead to a consensus outcome; this doesn't need to be a thread that stays open for weeks while dozens of people weigh in.

Bbb23 blocked Michael.C.Wright October 23, sitewide, indefinitely, for edit-warring on a BLP about an individual who has been involved in COVID-19-related controversies. The block summary reads edit warring at Martin Kulldorff after expiration of last block for the same thing. Michael.C.Wright made only a handful of edits on the article itself in this particular edit-war, but he was also active on the talkpage, and in his whole contribution history, at least half of his edits appear to be to that article or its talkpage. An initial unblock request was declined by Johnuniq. A second unblock request has been open for four weeks and needs resolution.

As I read the discussion on the user-talkpage, Michael.C.Wright disputes that there was a basis for any block and has sought to open a discussion on the definition of "edit-warring," which I take as a denial that he edit-warred. There do appear to be potentially debatable issues as to the contents of the article on Kulldorff, as reflected in the extensive discussions on the article talkpage, whose merits I haven't evaluated. Although Michael.C.Wright's editing has primarily focused on Martin Kulldorff, he has made useful contributions in other areas, such as relating to coffee.

Of the admins who have commented to this point, Bbb23 opposes any unblock because he don't see the editor showing any self-awareness following the block; Johnuniq remains concerned about unblocking but suggests that a topic-ban might be sufficient; and Charles Matthews has suggested that the block might be of finite duration. My own view is that an indefinite, site-wide block is unnecessary but I am less sure whether there should be a full unblock or a block with some article or topic restriction. As the discussion on user-talk doesn't seem to leading to a conclusion, and I don't see a need to act unilaterally, I'm bringing this here. @Bbb23, Johnuniq, and Charles Matthews: pinging you as you are mentioned above and your input would be appreciated (as would anyone else's). Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright has been disruptive at the Martin Kulldorff for a while. In the recent incident the MO was to attack a reliable source on highly dubious grounds, then declare that that means the content is 'unsourced' [39] - it clearly isn't by any reasonable definition of the word 'unsourced'. Then the argument is that since BLP allows for removal of unsourced content, the content must be be immediately removed without further discussion. (their words). We went around with this same tactic once before, in September - that led to the previous block for edit warring. I think it is also worth mentioning the talk page section Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 3#What's a "disease control measure"?, which details an effort by Michael to keep a sentence out of the article as some sort of bargaining chip to get another sentence they wanted added in - a clear violation of WP:POINT. I think Michael's edits on coffee related articles have been good and helpful overall, but they have been wasting a lot of editor time at the Kulldorff article. I suggest that the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions should be employed, and they receive a topic ban from COVID-19 in place of the current indefinite block. - MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason this community should put up with Michael.C.Wright. He was never a useful editor and now is wiki-lawyering because he refuses to admit fault. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why he should be unblocked without at bare minimum a topic ban from Martin Kulldorff and page blocks from both Martin Kulldorff and Talk:Martin Kulldorff. The WP:IDHT and disruptive editing issues regarding this specific issue are obvious. Given their almost WP:SPA like nature over most of the last year, I don't really see a good reason to unblock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly levels of WP:IDHT going on. But I'm all for giving people a second, if final chance. As per MrOllie a topic ban for COVID19 seems appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. I will just repeat what I said on Michael's Talk page so people don't have to search for it: "I'm opposed to an unblock even with restrictions. Users who have no insight into their own conduct, who deny they were doing anything wrong, who are apparently more interested in wikilawyering (see Michael's latest example below) should not be unblocked. If in the future after perhaps some reflection, they see the problems with their behavior that led to the block, then such an unblock request and appropriate restrictions may be considered."

I will also add because I don't think anyone mentioned it. My block was not the first time Michael was blocked for edit-warring at the Martin Kulldorff article. EdJohnston blocked him on September 20, 2022, for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• The editor has certainly been a time sink at the Kulldorff article and the latest round of legalistic argumentation at his Talk page persuaded me that an unblock would be unwise. I'd add that if the current block is to be turned into a TBAN it should be for "biomedical aspects of COVID-19, broadly construed" so that content like "coffee production fell during the COVID-19 pandemic" would not be in breach of it. Bon courage (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I see the conduct around the Kulldorff article as having generally lapsed into WP:JUSTDROPIT territory. Michael seems inept in some ways, but I think the situation is better handled by restricting his editing than by a permanent site-wide ban. I would say unblock at the beginning of 2023, with a requirement to stay away from COVID topics. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Agnostic on the unblock, support topic ban on COVID-19 related topics, broadly construed. If they are unblocked, and want to make more edits about coffee, let them do that instead. --Jayron32 13:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, extend the standard offer starting from now. Wright has shown no indication that he was in the wrong, and wants to debate the definition of "edit warring" instead. This entire issue came up because Wright is trying to figure out which rules he can use to get content he dislikes removed from the article. That's not collaborative editing, that's wikilawyering. I don't expect the user to be much better elsewhere, and any topic ban will likely result in more wikilawyering to try and get around it. Instead let him file an appeal in 6 months and we can see if he's willing to quit trying to use the rules as a stick to get the results he wants.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• weak oppose If Wright had shown any remorse/ understanding of how they contributed to this problem. Any intention to change, any awareness of how they are hurting the project- I would be all for a T-ban or unblock, but without that- they are a net loss to WP and should stay blocked. However, if they develop said awareness, I'm willing / open to change my opinion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Would be fine with a “time served” unblock and a COVID ban as proposed. As is, it’s an indef for edit warring after a recent block for the same. A low-level block cemented only by the user’s refusal to concede that they were guilty of edit warring in that situation, and a blocking administrator who refuses to negotiate unless the user admits they were in the wrong (which, don’t get me wrong, is normal). While it may seem convenient to just leave them blocked, an indef block for second offense edit warring is not a tenable solution. The situation does need to be resolved and a TBAN seems like the routine measure to address the underlying issue of apparent bias in a contentious topic area. I don’t actually see any arguments that an indef is necessary…not even from the blocking admin. The fact that the user refuses to concede that one revert should be considered edit warring is not enough to default to a shadowban.

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• I came to this with a general feeling that "surely we can unblock with a Covid T-ban; people don't have to admit they did something wrong, because remember that editors have pride"... but, oh boy, Michael's input in the talkpage section "What's a "disease control measure"?" changed my mind. If this is what the user will do to push through his own version, then they shouldn't be editing any topic, sorry. Swarm above calls this "an indef for edit warring after a recent block for the same", but IMO that's only what it formally is - really, it's an indef for extensive unreasonableness and painful waste of time. The time, energy and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most important resource, and Michael has been recklessly squandering that resource. (Comment by Bishzilla: There goes Bishonen again with her favorite cliché.) Regretfully, I have to support an indef. Bishonen | tålk 05:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC).

  Well that is absolutely my point. If the indef is to be maintained it needs to be converted to a more appropriate rationale, if it is not considered to be a site ban. The block, as is, needs to be rectified somehow because it is not a solution. If we’re going to retroactively reframe it as a sanction for wider disruptive editing, that needs to be formalized. It needs to be argued to begin with, from what I can see. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock with broadly construed COVID-19 topic ban. Oppose unblock without a topic ban or with a topic ban restricted to Martin Kulldorff. Neutral on an unblock with a topic ban on biomedical aspects of COVID-19. I share Bbb32's and others concerns that Michael's apparent inability to recognise the problems with the behaviour means it may be repeated, however the focused nature of their problems combined with the way it manifested leads me to think we can risk giving them this final chance. Whatever Michael's recent editing history, IIRC supposedly their main editing interest is largely outside the COVID-19 space so they should have plenty of articles to edit and such a topic ban should not be a defacto site ban. However I do think this needs to be broad including covering things like coffee production during the COVID-19 pandemic or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on coffee sales. IMO there's too much risk of such things being affected by issues like lockdowns and mask mandates and while broadly construed should cover the worst of it, I feel it's better to just keep them away from anything involved. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass genre changes by User:RockabillyRaccoon

basically a single purpose account that only does genre edits, see Wikipedia:Genre warrior. i understand that the user's edits are done in good faith but the edits are, while sourced, often drive-by edits in established articles that often fail WP:SYNTH and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. the genre additions most often consist of "The music has been described" followed by a laundry list of genres, which is exactly how it should not be done, see WP:GWAR#Red flags:

Attributions that are not as obviously explicit depend on the context of the claim. One "grey-area" case would be if a source merely observes a potential or reputed attribution, such as "has been called [genre]" or "could be classified as [genre]". It must be considered whether the genre may be a "red flag". For example, even though Pet Sounds is sometimes advanced as an early emo album, including "emo" in the album's infobox might not be seen as the best idea.

an example for a violation of WP:SYNTH would be in the article Those Poor Bastards: "Those Poor Bastards performs a style that derives from gothic rock and traditional Americana ...This style has been classified as gothic country." But nowhere does the source say that this particular combination of genres has been "classified as gothic country".

here's an example of laundry list of genres (literally 20 or 30) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_Shack_Shakers#Musical_style

there has been a previous discussion with User: Netherzone (1) about the user's changes on the article The Cramps. i also left a message on their talk page which was removed. --FMSky (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding Those Poor Bastards: I did not add that "synthesis" you claim I added. I added a citation for the group performing the genre of gothic country. I simply didn't bother changing anything else that was already in the article that was seemingly cited to other sources or possibly not at all because I don't want to get into a conflict with another editor over removing content that may possibly have been cited that I didn't see a citation for. You put back the genre classifications of doom metal and gothic metal which were cited to a source that made no mention of either style and in fact called the group's music gothic country. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• In fact, this text that FMSky objected to that he accused me of adding is in his edit, and the previous edits before I even edited the article. I did not add this content. At all. It was already there, added by someone else. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, and the diff. I noticed similar genre-related issues/behavior on The Cramps article and the Poison Ivy (musician) article. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You disagreed with my edits. I was willing to oblige your concerns. We came to a mutual agreement. I'm not seeing a "behavior" here. Adding citations to verify the text's content isn't problematic and it isn't problematic to respectfully disagree, discuss the changes and come to a mutual agreement on further changes. I think a behavior is following a complete stranger around reverting every single one of their edits for no conceivable reason, and then accusing them of doing something that they did not do, which is what FMSky did. I don't engage in conflict. I leave most edits be unless there's a significant removal of sourced content. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly, RockabillyRaccoon. You removed all the genres from the infobox without getting consensus and only left psychobilly and gothabilly as the genres. This did not seem NPOV, it seemed that you were favoring rockabilly genres and subgenera. You even removed punk from this quintessential punk band but left your preferred rockabilly genre. It seemed that you were making Drive-by genre changes and drive by category changes to an article you had barely edited in the past (except to (previously) remove punk in 2021) when it was a category in the article since 2001. If memory serves me, you did not want to discuss on the article talk page, and I had to ask several times, then move the discussion to talk myself where you continued to argue about sources, rather than address the genre changes. My last note on the talk page was a question which you never bothered to answer: Here is my question for you: Can we agree that the genres and categories can include both punk and rockabilly? Where was the mutual agreement you speak of?, No offense, but it felt like I was being ghosted. You didn’t seem to understand that the issue was about genres not a Dave Barry source or other sources. Sources should not be used to bolster one's preferred genres, or as a rationale to delete others that you don't like. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I objectively did not do that and I thought you understood that I hadn't done that. Disagreeing with the sources doesn't mean that another editor is doing something wrong. Did you not understand that the outcome of that dispute illustrated that I was not acting on preferences but editing based on the sources cited? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

RockabillyRaccoon, please step back for a moment and consider that this is not about a disagreement with the sources, it is about you making sweeping changes to genres in infoboxes and categories and changing them to your preferred genres of Rockabilly and its subgenera. Netherzone (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is objectively not true. If you look at FMSky's edits, they have been going through months of edits removing sourced content and citations without provocation and haven't made any effort to discuss any changes before removing the content to see if other people agree with them. If they have legitimate concerns, they should be discussing them on the talk pages. If they had a problem with my edits, they should have talked to me first, not going on a massive editing spree to revert every single edit I've made regardless of what the sources say and then post about me on the notice board because they have an opinion that conflicts with the sources and cannot be bothered to civilly discuss their disagreement. I don't understand their unreasonableness and unwillingness to work with other editors. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

i literally left a message on your talk page before reverting most of the edits --FMSky (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not. This is the first message you ever left on my talk page, and it's not raising an objective concern about the content of the edits, you called them "nonsensical" because you disagree with them because you simply did not look at any of the sources cited. I especially don't appreciate the fact that you removed content from the Legendary Shack Shakers article that I spent hours researching, literally an entire section, because you don't agree with it. You didn't even bother to look at the hundreds of citations you removed. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: There's no justifiable reason to remove 11,358‎ characters from an article. FMSky removed more content from a single section than what is contained in some whole articles. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the point. its not about whether the genres are sourced, they are, but whether they make sense to include in the article. --FMSky (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You didn't discuss any of the content you removed. You removed an entire section without discussion. Not a few genres, sourced or not, but an entire section with multiple citations because you didn't agree with what the writers of the cited articles said. That's not even good faith, that's clearly vindictive. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

yes because you removed the previously established genres and replaced them with your preferred ones. in genral its not a great idea to bulldoze throug articles you've never edited before --FMSky (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You're not being honest. If you honestly looked at my edits, you would see that they are objective and neutral. Maybe look at the hundreds of sources you removed from one article. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Now i'm definitely sure you didnt get the point. --FMSky (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the point about removing an entire section and 36 citations because you didn't like what the sources said? 36 citations. You're literally attacking the sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there one source to depend on the different genres rather than "30" citations to each genre? I've placed a {{citekill}} tag because it is just way too much. Sarrail (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, 30 citations were not given for one genre. That was for an entire section with dozens of cited genres. The most citations any of them had was 13 for one which already had a tag for excess citations. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@RockabillyRaccoon: Please take a deep breath and try to not treat ANI like a battleground where everyone is against you personally. Trying to sanctimoniously contradict an obvious hyperbole with a post like this is just picking fights. Particularly when done minutes after accusing an editor of removing hundreds of sources from an article that doesn't even have 50 sources. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it picking a fight to jump to the notice board after removing sourced content from multiple articles and accusing another editor of being a warrior for adding content and sources? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed, but the article I had modified is 1 of 20 different articles we are fidgeting on the removal of sources? Sarrail (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't kept track. I usually don't bother to revert an edit if I add content that gets removed, because usually no one blatantly removes a ton of cited content for no reason. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason i reverted your edits is because you are blatantly genre warring and do nothing else --FMSky (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. After looking at FMSky's edits, I noticed they are putting in ce in their edit summaries, and removing a lot of cited content isn't copyediting. So now using inaccurate edit summaries? Sarrail (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

i didnt remove anything cited in this particular edit. i even added a source. -FMSky (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

i'm starting to get the feeling people arent even understanding what this is about. ITS NOT ABOUT THE SOURCES --14:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. If you wish for anyone to intervene, there needs to be a lot less bickering, and a lot more WP:DIFs being presented. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

there isnt a single or multiple difs i can present. its the entirety of the user's edits. going into dozens of articles and replacing established genres with completely different ones, and doing nothing else--FMSky (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done this. This claim is objectively false. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean you didnt change the indie/alternative rock group The Veils (as described by allmusic https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-veils-mn0000574962/biography ) to a gothic rock and post-punk band (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Veils&diff=1123045020&oldid=1122876510 ) because they have dark lyrics, violating WP:SYNTH ? because it definitely seemed you did --FMSky (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's literally your opinion. I changed the lead to say "rock" because multiple genres were cited, alternative rock is unsourced and multiple sources cited The Veils as a gothic rock band. You're literally acting based on your opinions and not reading any of the sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources you presented to describe the band as gothic rock (completely ridiculous) a second time, here is what they say:

• 1: https://www.popmatters.com/the-veils-nux-vomica-2496205542.html says: "darkly gothic, depressive rock songs"
• 2: https://spectrumculture.com/2016/09/06/veils-total-depravity/ says: "The southern gothic rock of "Low Lays the Devil"", meaning a SINGLE (!) song
• 3: https://www.londoninstereo.com/the-veils-total-depravity-album-review/ says: "synth-heavy trance and gothic post-punk"

.. how could you possible interpret this as the band being a gothic rock band and listing this as their main genre?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs)

• I added three sources for indie rock and three sources for gothic rock. The reason gothic rock was ordered first was because of the alphabetical order. G comes before I. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

why did you even add gothic rock when none of the sources call them that??? --FMSky (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They did. You proved that they did by citing the text directly. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

im starting to get the feeling that you lack WP:CIR.. what does them having recorded a "gothic rock" song to do with them being a band of that genre? miley cirus recorded a metallica cover once, does that make her a metal musician? --FMSky (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm literally just reading what the sources on that band say. Your disagreement with what the sources say does not mean that they should be discounted and continuing to cite your opinion isn't being helpful, because my opinion that Eagles of Death Metal does not play any form of rockabilly isn't giving me a pass to go remove every cited instance referring to that band as being a representative of a rockabilly genre. And, FYI: calling me incompetent is not at all civil discourse. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If they're doing it all the time, it should be easy to provide difs, not impossible. I recommend starting up a subsection where you concisely give some difs with context of what's going on. We're already so far down this thread I doubt many have even read this far down as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's about what the sources say. You disagree with the sources. I disagree with the sources calling Eagles of Death Metal rockabilly and I haven't made a single edit to that article or brought it up on the talk page because at the end of the day my issue with those citations is that I disagree with what the sources say, which isn't enough to justify removing those sources because they say something that I don't agree with. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of fault, I do not recommend that anyone come to Wikipedia and do nothing but genre tweaking. It almost always leads to non-stop fighting, which in turn leads to burnout or being blocked for edit warring. Just an observation from an admin working in the music content area for over a decade. I recommend finding something to focus on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The biggest glaring distortion here is that I have not made "mass genre changes", this is blatantly false. Context keeps getting brought up to justify gutting entire articles and removing sources and content, but there's no context being given to my edits, which clearly have been entirely reasonable. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, even still, some of your editing is a bit...misguided. For example, even with sources, this wall of text is:

1. Pretty obvious excessive/overkill.
2. Reads very poorly
3. Lacks proper context/nuance. I spot-checked "heavy metal" for example. This artist is not considered a metal artist, there was simply a single song that had a single part of it with heavy metal elements.

If my spot checking is a good example of the type of work you're doing here, then it's indeed problematic, even if FMSky is struggling to illustrate it thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Do you have the time to comment on the discussion at the article's talk page to make changes to the section? Because this wasn't done before FMSky came here. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll leave some guidance there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

this response pretty much confirms that the user is unable or unwilling to contribute constructively and shouldn't be editing genres https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Veils&diff=1123066135&oldid=1123063309 --FMSky (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think its a bit too soon to jump to that conclusion. I think they need more guidance. They don't seem to be aware that their stance violates our concept of original research. I left advice for them here about how they should trim things back to instances where sources directly call a musician a genre, not sources that are merely talking about a musician's songs or something. If they can adjust their approach to that, I think there's hope. If they can't, then yes, big issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• It's not original research to literally say what the sources literally say. I've already explained this to FMSky. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Are you understanding what I'm trying to tell you on the talk page I just linked above? Yes, you are providing sources for your work. But there are a lot of issues in how and where you're choosing portray this information. It lacks a lot of context and nuance. I need you to slow down and rethink how you're doing things. You don't seem to even be open to acknowledging that you're anything less than flawless here. Its simply not the case. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit by FMSky is a blatant example of edit warring and disruption by FMSky, who undid another editor's work as well as removed my copyediting on the biography section for no reason other than to be disruptive. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This shows that FMSky is continuing to refuse to listen to reason. They have already edit warred on the Legendary Shack Shakers article and massively removed content, now they are simply ignoring me instead of trying to collaborate or listen to me. FMSky is a disruptive editor, period. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you...just trying to regurgitate the exact same things he's accusing you of...? Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

FMSky literally removed sources and content and reverted my copyediting on the biography for no reason. Look at the edits. I am in the right. FMSky blatantly disregarded what they were told and reverted the article back to their preferred version twice now. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You're both edit warring, but if anything, you should be following WP:BRD. Stop continually reverting your preferred information in. Discuss on the talk page and only make changes if there is a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Yes, you're providing sources, but there's more to Wikipedia than just adding sources. Context matters. Representing sources accurately matter. You need to start following WP:BRD stat or your account is going to be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There was already an intervention by SarekOfVulcan in an attempt to stop FMSky's disruptive editing, and FMSky continued to edit disruptively without any regard to other people's work on this article, removing SarekOfVulcan's edits and my subsequent copyediting of the Biography section. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• I hate to add yet another bulleted indentless comment but I feel the disrespect for this discussion is going to prevent this AN/I posting from being as productive as it could be, and I believe Legendary Shack Shakers is a microcosm of every reason for this. The edit war has continued parallel to this AN/I report which I find is disrespectful to the entire purpose of this discussion and is in no way de-escalatory. RockabillyRaccoon is bludgeoning this discussion with numerous separated and disorganized posts, while FMSky has seemingly ceased engagement here, after failing to provide diffs for much of their assertions, and on other talk pages (FMSky has repeatedly pointed to the 'discussion' at Talk:Legendary Shack Shakers#Musical Styles as reasons to not discuss elsewhere, while not discussing any further than a 'I propose we keep my version.') Neither editor has been particularly civil to each other, and this AN/I posting from this morning has ballooned in size in a very short amount of time. I'm stopping just short of formally requesting a short-term TBAN from music on both users because I would like to see these users either calm down and discuss, concisely present the finer points of their case here with diffs, or disengage from one another and mentally trout themselves. Please trout me if this is out of order but looking at how fast this thread has lengthened, with much of it amounting to bickering, I fear nobody will want to pick up the trail seeing what there is to read through. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was civil to FMSky. FMSky went out of their way to revert edits on my edit list without justification, just to be disruptive. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have provided multiple diffs, what are you even talking about? Any why would i add to the discussion when RockabillyRaccoon has failed to even acknowledge and adress any of the points brought up by Sergecross73 here or at Talk:Legendary Shack Shakers? --FMSky (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I cannot work with someone who removes sources and sourced content because they have a problem with me. In this revert you removed all the work that SarekOfVulcan had done on the genres section, failed to acknowledge this as input from another user and insisted there wasn't a consensus for SarekOfVulcan to make those changes even though I agreed with them, and in the same edit, removed hard work I had done on the biography section, including sources I added and grammatical copyediting, simply to be disruptive. I objectively did nothing wrong. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  You deigned not to discuss the proposed changes, because they failed to implement suggestions that another user had not yet suggested? That doesn't make sense. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  ??? --FMSky (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree though that the constant back and forth isnt helping anyone so i will stop editing/reverting genres in these articles until a solution is found --FMSky (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How about reverting back to SarekOfVulcan's revision and allowing other editors to do copyediting to restore all of the broken citations? I was trying to work towards a compromise. You chose no compromise. You failed to acknowledge why any changes were made. You also never edited this article before today and simply started reverting edits made in my edit history. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Outside of the time you asked me for advice on one of the talk page discussions earlier today, it doesn't appear you're listening to anyone input. (You haven't even acknowledged my advice ironically.) I can't stress enough that you've got to do a complete attitude change. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You need to work with others. You cannot simply ignore everyone who gives you input. You need to stop and discuss on talk pages, and actively engage with them, not just talk past them. The way you are acting is not sustainable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been working with others. I have asked for discussion. FMSky reverted changes made by other people in an attempt to compromise. Specifically SarekOfVulcan's revision. FMSky offered zero input into making any constructive changes, they simply objected to the Citations because they didn't like what the citations said. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You barely respond two times in a row on the same subject. It's all reverts and complaining with no real substance. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan made an edit in an attempt to gauge a compromise. I agreed with SarekOfVulcan's edits, but FMSky reverted them, claiming that there was no consensus despite two editors agreeing on changes. That pretty clearly shows that I have worked with other editors. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is someone else's edit supposed to be showing that you're constructively discussing and collaborating? I'm worried you're not understanding at all at this point. Your response makes zero sense. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Break

Upon reviewing things:

• RockabillyRacoon needs to slow down and take more time to learn how Wikipedia works, and be more open to accepting that their edits could use some work.
• RockabillyRacoon needs to be less combative, and discuss with other editors. Many comments are combative and don't address the concerns brought to them. They talk right past people.
• That said, FMSky should try to be a bit more patient in discussing and working with them. And be more specific and concise if they report them again.

Just leaving these notes here for future reference in case this fizzles out and gets archived. I prefer that over adding them as a closing comment - I'd rather not close, as this still feels rather unresolved. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP

@46.221.188.87 has now twice attacked me with personal attacks when they disagreed with me at Bingöl Province. There are other issues with their edits including removing referenced info for info that is unverifiable. Semsûrî (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that the editor has used two IPs; also 176.219.2.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Semsûrî (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Slurs continue with a new IP. 46.154.143.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Semsûrî (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor with penchant for California politics?

I've been reverting some edits by an IP editor(s?) engaged in disrupting articles on California politics. But I gave up because I don't know if more IPs are involved, and also I wasn't sure if some of the edits were legit or not (incl. some I already reverted), so I thought I'd better ask someone who knows better to look into this.

The IPs involved are:
2603:8001:2902:64F4:D5B8:60F2:A7A2:433E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2603:8001:2902:64F4:F4A0:8701:6427:CFA7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2603:8001:2902:64F4:184A:B865:6DCE:1133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well on many Los Angeles elections. They've removed all instanced of the word "nonpartisan" in election infoboxes and election boxes and say that it's because California elections are nonpartisan (even though most nonpartisan elections have "nonpartisan" in them) and when I reverted them, they just reverted right back and gave the exact same reasoning. I'm pretty sure that the IP addresses beginning in 2603:8001:2902:64F4 are the same person based on what they edit and their behavior. Possible that a school IP address (74.62.14.52) is also the same person or was used by the same person. reppop^talk 16:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They're using several IP addresses, attacking California government, politics, and elections at the State, County, and City level:

2603:8001:2902:64F4:FC03:AAB1:9B95:155C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:D06A:5D79:A98F:2CCE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:CD40:5120:8D1B:8645 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:7433:353B:7DAA:C5EA (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

74.62.14.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

74.62.14.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:FCF6:2B8F:2977:880 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can we ban the range for disruptive editing? OCNative (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only in California now, they're removing "Nonpartisan" in multiple mayoral elections in the address 2603:8001:2902:64F4:FC03:AAB1:9B95:155C (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If they were to be stopped could someone revert all their changes? reppop^talk 06:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this - I tried to explain why this wasn't constructive here and thought I had explained it clearly enough. There have been some edits that have been constructive - like adding photos to candidates or minor fixes. However, this editor started using misleading edit summaries after I explained what they were doing was unhelpful. I'm not sure that this person is acting in bad faith - but they're not including any references for these party affiliations anyway. I think there needs to be a style guide for California voter-nominated offices elections created.. but that's a whole other topic (that I can help with but not experienced enough to even know how to start lol).

I can start reverting these changes - it's truly incredible how many they have changed in such a short amount of time. Marleeashton (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Marleeashton: There's this discussion that I've started. Honestly I'm fine with leaving them with grey boxes or adding color based on map colors, but not with removing any color altogether (like the IP addresses have done). I can see that they've done some good, but they're literally removing something that has pretty much been there before they came. reppop^talk 18:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Request unblock

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

---

Normally I'd go to WP:AN but that's the page I've been blocked from by an admin who is WP:INVOLVED in the discussion. I was told not to post here either, but my unblock request has gone either unnoticed or unanswered as has my reply to the blocking user per WP:ADMINACCT, so I guess I'll roll the dice here as it's my last non-ArbCom point. If this adds to my block, it's just one more sign that WP has become completely dysfunctional and I guess ArbCom is the only remaining route.

I ask that my block be overturned on the following grounds:

• Admin was involved in the discussion and should not have blocked someone with an opposing viewpoint.
• Gave a very vague "warning" that I guess I misinterpreted; I'd argue it wasn't clear at all
• The discussion has been closed, therefore there is no possible remaining disruption (blocks are preventative, not punative)
• I responded 3 times in the following 48 hours. That's hardly bludgeoning.
• The block summary claims "continued bludgeoning after multiple warnings" and is false. At most, there was a single warning. The alleged "bludgeoning" did not continue.

(Relevant addendum)

• I responded to TWO remarks directed at me (including the blocking Admin's) and THREE comments in the following TWO days since that "warning" and stopped responding further: [40] [41] [42]. Nine hours after my last remark and 3 days after I allegedly first violated this admin's edict, I got blocked?
• Contrary to the assertions below, Bish was absolutely involved in the discussion
• The discussion was closed 4 hours after the block. No more disruption can possibly occur.

Buffs (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'll provide a few courtesy links: here is the AN discussion in question, which was a block review concerning another user. Of course I didn't tell Buffs not to post on ANI; I warned them about going on to disrupt ANI as well, here, in my block notice. And there were two warnings in the AN discussion about bludgeoning: one from K.e.coffman and one from me, where I told them they needed to stop posting in the thread — clearly, as I imagined. It appears Buffs saw them, as he replied to both. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC).
• Endorse the page block Bish was absolutely not involved. They were in no dispute with you over anything. You were warned per WP:BLUDGEON to stop trying to dominate the conversation and let other voices to be heard. You chose to not follow that advice. Admins are not involved merely because they told you to stop doing something. If you would like to be restored to full editing privileges, demonstrate you understand how to follow such advice. --Jayron32 13:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bish was absolutely involved in the discussion, not "merely because they told you to stop doing something". Buffs (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Can you show me where they were in conflict with you prior to interacting with you in an administrative capacity? They don't mention you at all in that post. --Jayron32 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Am I allowed to reply, or is that more evidence of bludgeoning? (I'm not being snarky here. I genuinely want to know if a response here is going to be held against me...some already are). Buffs (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I guess I'll take my chances:

  WP:INVOLVED states: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

  Given that the "warning" was given in response to my dissent with her opinion (among others), I think that pretty clearly qualifies as a "current conflict". There is no caveat for "it only counts if you mention another user by name" or "only if you have prior disputes". (For ease of reference: Bish's opinion, my opinion). Buffs (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock: The unblock request maintains by all five bulleted reasons that the user was unjustly blocked, and never acknowledges the clear bludgeoning done in the thread. Between the attitude seen in last diffs linked by Bish above, and the user's ultimatum of Unblock me or WP is completely dysfunctional I think a 2 week block from AN (fairly short and nonrestrictive all things considered) is a good chance to step away from "wikipolitics" and reconsider how one engages in discussion here/there. Many thanks to Bish for the concise rundown and links. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - The block was quite justified by the editor's behavior, very clear warning was given, and the admin was not WP:INVOLVED. Pretty straight-forward. IMO, the editor's frequently expressed biases have blinded them to the disruptive nature of their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - Buffs, you were absolutely bludgeoning that discussion, playing Devil's Advocate for a self-proclaimed white supremacist, and generally being obnoxious to everyone whom you disagreed with. You've also posted your "Final Words" as a Wikipedian on your Talk page in January, yet you're right back here arguing with everyone. And now you're wanting to waste ArbCom's time with this? You've already made up your mind that Wikipedia is "dysfunctional" and not for you, but you keep coming back here to argue & belittle other users. The only thing you're going to prove is that you're WP:NOTHERE to do anything but pick fights at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally resent the implication that I am advocating for white supremacy/white supremacist. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am asking that admins follow the rules and guidelines rather than capriciously apply blocks and restrictions. If you can't point to a policy or a guideline for a block, then it shouldn't be done. If others disagree and think that essays alone are sufficient reason for blocks, we're going down a path of blocks for WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. I recognize my opinion isn't the majority in this matter. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Buffs, I mean this in sincere good faith, but please be mindful that you don't bludgeon the discussion of your block for bludgeoning behavior. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing in favor of unblocking an avowed white supremacist. You may think you're just arguing protocol, but you are choosing this particular user to make the argument. That has implications, and you need to recognize that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I argued for process to be followed. When process isn't followed for one person, it can be later ignored for others. It is a slippery slope. As multiple people pointed out, at most 1-2 of his mainspace edits could be in any way associated with race/racism and even those were arguably correct regardless of motivation. Many people on that thread doubted he was who he said he was. Our policy is to remove such material from his user page and, if he re-adds it, to then block. This is two blocks in quick succession that are out of line with what we've agreed to as a community. If every block is based on an essay, then admins can just block whomever they want.

Let me also be clear: I do not in any way support the Proud Boys or their white supremacist ilk's views. If you cannot separate an argument about process from an argument about a person's views, that's a pretty serious problem. While WP is not America, some of the same principles apply. Example: I actively support the right of people to protest even if I don't agree with their position and I have gone so far as to personally physically protect them. If we as a society are willing to throw people in jail because they hold views we don't agree with, we aren't truly interested in upholding rights; we are interested in exercising rights only if we are willing to repress others' rights. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - The user is exhausting the patience of most of their colleagues, and at this point should be thankful the block has not extended beyond that of the noticeboard. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Unblock And I would strongly, STRONGLY advise do not go to ArbCom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Unblock When I first saw this section and read the intro, I came away with the inference that the block had been indefinite or for a very prolonged period, and I came here to speak in defense of Buffs. That, I feel, would not be deserved. But seeing now that the block complained of was for two weeks has brought me to the opposite conclusion. The contributions were definitely in WP:BLUDGEON territory and the sanction seems appropriate to me to prevent disruption. I would respectfully ask this editor to wait out their time, and as the kids say, "read the room." As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock Is it snowing? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock I read through the relevant discussions and talk page and I find the administrative actions excessive. The block does not square with Wikipedia:Blocking policy and is not WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. In this case an actual warning probably would have been sufficient rather than a cryptic pseudo-warning from Bishonen. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  But they were already warned, they just ignored it [43]. Yes the warning was on AN rather than their talk page, but since they read it that's moot. The warning didn't explicitly mention that they could be blocked, but Buffs has been here for a very long time. They should know by now that if your behaviour is disruptive you can be blocked. They should not need to be explicitly told that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  No one has argued "the warning was on AN rather than their talk page" so it shouldn't count. Simply declaring responses "disruptive" doesn't make them so. if your behaviour is disruptive you can be blocked SURE! But you should be clearly told what your boundaries are when they are going to block you. Given that the discussion is over, there is nothing remaining to accomplish for this block. The duration does not meet the standards of our Wikipedia:Blocking policy and is punitive in nature, not preventative as it is required to be. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Three replies here and an ‘addendum’ in under 10 minutes. Buffs, you do realise what you’re doing, yeah? (Rhetorical, no reply required.) — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Four replies, plus pitching up on my talk page to accuse me of being incivil for not agreeing with them. Nice. — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I did not accuse you of being "incivil [sic]" for not agreeing. I accused you of being uncivil for taunting. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's amusing, coming from you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Anyone want to step in here and handle this personal attack? Comment on content, not on the contributor. Gotcha. Unworthy of defense because you don't like my opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Bludgeoning a discussion about an unblock request for bludgeoning is evidence that the block should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock It was a block from one page for two weeks, and was absolutely justified. Textbook bludgeoning after being warned not to. And WP:INVOLVED means involved in a prior dispute with an editor, not merely posting in the same discussion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  See reply to Jayron32 above. Buffs (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Recommend you run out the clock, on this one. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Complaining that "blocks should be based on policy not essays" is misunderstanding the whole block rationale. The essays being pointed to (WP:HID for what's his name in the original thread, WP:BLUDGEON for Buffs) both explain how behavior violates policy. Buffs, when you were blocked for bludgeoning a discussion, this is equivalent to a block for disruptive editing. WP:BLUDGEON is just explaining how you were being disruptive. If you read the essay, it is providing you more, not less, information on what you are doing wrong.

Also, while I'm agnostic on whether this particular block could be reversed now that the thread is closed, there can easily be some preventative benefit to keeping this kind of block in place. If someone disrupts a lot of discussions, blocking them from something for two weeks - and not undoing the block when the discussion closes - sends a clear message that you need to stop behaving in the way that led to the block, in order to avoid longer site-wide blocks next time. Unblocking after each discussion closes might send a message that the consequences of continually doing this kind of thing are minor. It's not necessarily "punitive", but "preventative for the next time".

Finally, please note how many people think you are doing something wrong. This isn't some lone rouge admin who has it in for you. People are genuinely getting tired of seeing this. You don't have to agree with them, but - if you want to keep editing here - you need to recognize that this is how the community interprets things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(adding to comment above) But let's be careful about accusations of bludgeoning this discussion. While IMHO he definitely bludgeoned the discussion leading to his block - tons of repetitive comments about a subject he was not otherwise involved in - it makes more sense to reply to comments directly about him here. It is possible to bludgeon this discussion too, but let's be careful and show some grace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, Floquenbeam. This thread, unlike the original AN discussion, is about Buffs, so naturally he may need to write many responses. IMO he should get to post here as many times as he feels he needs. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but to quote policy as requested by Buffs themselves ... blocks should be based on policy not essays and If you can't point to a policy or a guideline for a block, then it shouldn't be done. both ring loud bells that remind me of the (I think more salient than WP:IAR) very much policy Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Strictly speaking, admins aren't lawyers sifting through documents to find perfect legal precedent for a block, admins exercise discretion... discretion that the community decided they should have. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

They don't have to look far. I already outlined the logic of this block as it should have been...and why it should be lifted now. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an edge case but the result being a short-lived mild remedy it's probably best to leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Unblock - for time served. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Buffs (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment may I suggest we retire B:UDGEONING as a reason for blocking? As we see in this very thread, there are accusations of bludgeoning when all it is responding to replies. When you're 1 against many, of course people will accuse you of bludgeoning, that's all they're seeing, your reply against many individual comments. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose retiring BLUDGEON - Silly idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that the user is defending themselves in a thread about them so they should not be accused of bludgeoning for their comments here. That point is fair but it is unrelated to the actual block that is being reviewed. I’m not sure why you’d suggest doing away with such blocks when the block in question is currently overwhelmingly endorsed by the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON isn't a policy or even a guideline. It's an essay that admits it does not have widespread support right in its header. If the logic of a block does not have widespread support, then why is it a valid reason for blocking? Nothing in our blocking policy states we can block based on essays. As I've clearly outlined above, we should only block for policies and guidelines. The issue Sir Joseph is arguing is not whether this block is appropriate but whether WP:BLUDGEON should be used as a standard for blocks. Given that it doesn't enjoy the widespread support of WP, I think that's self-evident. If that opinion changes, I'm all for making it a guideline/policy and issuing blocks accordingly. Buffs (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

1. I've been accused of bludgeoning in a AN thread about me, so it is used. 2. If you want to block someone, you should be able to use something other than bludgeoning, since in many cases it's just a "I don't want to see your opinion anymore. If someone is disruptive, we have disruptive, if their attacking, we have civil and NPA. Bludgeoning should not be the reason given. It does chill the atmosphere, especially when it's 1 against many. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

When it is one against many is when you are supposed to realize consensus is against you and stop digging. If you keep digging then that is when it is bludgeoning and disruptive editing. nableezy - 18:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would point out that Buffs doesn't bludgeon many discussions, but has the tendency to do so on the few they appear invested in - 19 comments on the one this thread is relevant to, 18 on the recent WP:AN thread on admin Tamzin, and 39 on this thread about User:Bedford in August. It would probably be better to disengage way before that point. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  You're conflating edit count with responses, which is intentionally/negligently misleading.

  As stated above, by even the blocking admin, this is a response to me personally and I can respond as I feel I need to within this context. To conflate (you seem to be doing that with a lot) this interaction with bludgeoning is unbecoming for an editor, especially an admin. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't going to take part in this, but Buffs, do you really think that this lack of good faith is helping you? Doug Weller talk 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  What lack of good faith? BK stated that people shouldn't be allowed to close discussions based on someone's faith and we get barely the clucking of tongues. There's certainly the possibility of a connection when he uses that opposition as evidence against you. WP:AGF is a two-way street. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I will take a second to point out that your efforts to WP:WIKILAWYER your way out of this block do not actually seem to be working. I suggest taking in this data, and using it to inform your future actions. You can play the "I can quote policy better than you" game all your want, but it will have no greater effect on getting yourself unblocked than screaming impotently into the void. I mean, you do you, but take a look at whether your approach here is being successful in achieving your goals, and adjust your approach accordingly. --Jayron32 17:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. I recognize then and now that, regardless of my opinions, a plurality of the community saw my actions as bludgeoning.
  2. It was for that reason I stopped for 48 hours and limited my further replies.
  3. I also recognize that, regardless of my opinions/assertions, a plurality of the community saw my continued actions as bludgeoning.
  4. Irrespective of the reasons listed above, the reason to maintain a block is past as the thread is now closed and the block should be lifted (i.e. no further disruption can possibly occur). It exists currently as a punitive measure, not a preventative one. There is no evidence asserted by the blocking admin that further disruption will occur, just a vague "in case". To further cement that, I will pledge not place more than one reply per subheading in any WP:AN forum through the end of the year. Failing that, I would request that I be blocked for 2 months from all AN fora.

  I am not trying to wikilawyer by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies of the block and inconsistent treatment of others on WP with respect to policy/guidelines. We can do better than this. Buffs (talk) 18:43, 23 November 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.

Beauty pageant editor (November)

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.

---

• JusTaufan96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, we have a pageant SPA on mobile who doesn’t seem to be noticing they are repeatedly being reverted and warned for adding unreferenced content. Some help getting their attention? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from Miss World 2022 for 48 hours. If that doesn't get their attention, or if they move on to something else, I'll widen it. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion You might want to expand that block. Said editor has immediately returned to Miss World 2022 this time to add poorly referenced content rather than unsourced content. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 20:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Site-blocked indef, editors don't need to waste more time with this sort of thing, and it looks like they're moving to other topics with the same issues. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I will never understand why beauty pageants attract people/editors like this. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action Acroterion. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:58, 22 November 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 behavior from Als8888 (talk · contribs) on Jim Fouratt

Basically what it says in the title. General TERF-y behavior, reeks of WP:NOTHERE. Would've reported at WP:AIV, but it's not pure vandalism. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU is too charitable. The reported user’s edit summaries are, objectively, stunningly abusive and immature, and indefensibly incompatible with this or any reasonable community’s norms. It’s orders of magnitude worse than POOPPOOPDICKPOOP-variety vandalism and one would hope AIV-ers would make it go away first and categorize it later. Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a (temp?) block here, if only for the combative/WP:NPA behaviour shown in Special:Diff/1123347897 and Special:Diff/1123347391 past a clear warning — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 07:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea about the substance of this dispute, but the edit summaries in those diffs linked above are not in any way conducive to encyclopedia building. That and the generally combative attitude they've displayed is definitely not a good look. I've blocked them for 48 hours. If this sort of nonsense resumes afterwards I imagine an indef would be on the cards. firefly ( t · c ) 08:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Support the block on the strength of Als8888's edit summaries alone. They also need to re-read WP:BLP. Have briefly protected the page to give space for discussion of reliable sources (if any) and/or whether the entire alleged incident is WP:Undue. Anyone can feel free to lift this protection early if it seems like consensus has developed on the talk page.-- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Als8888's entire contribution history appears to be edit-warring over this particular claim, against five or six other editors, and does not seem to understand the objection to the content at all. Maybe the other editors involved could have done a better job of explaining to Als8888 why there was a problem with sourcing contentious claims about a living person to tweets, and nobody appears to have started any discussion on the talkpage until Euryalus protected the article, but none of that makes edit-warring against consensus acceptable and unless Als8888 seriously revises their approach once Firefly's block expires it seems likely that they will simply end up re-blocked. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Firefly was lenient in their block. I would have indef'd as a SPA who's here to push their point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore feel free to lengthen/amend the block - I didn't have time to deep dive into the matter but what I saw justified at minimum a temporary block to stem the flow of disruption/harassment. firefly ( t · c ) 12:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Firefly, just did. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this technically outing [44]? I don't see the editor named has declared a Twitter account on their userpage although it could be somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Pretty sure they're assuming that my Twitter account was suspended (it was not) following Elon Musk's takeover because I'm on the far left. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

202.75.0.0/16

Nearly all active users from this IP-range are blocked for vandalism, block evasions or sth like that. When one blocked, they just changed to another rapidly to evade current existed block. I recommended a range block for 202.75.0.0/16 if possible. Lemonaka (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked x 1 month for disruptive editing. A quick check of the recent (last few months) editing history within this range shows that it is largely disruptive with numerous blocks. A number of the individual IPs are indeed already blocked and others have been recently. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

List of Nazi monuments in Canada

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

---

I believe this listicle likely violates WP:LIBEL and should be removed immediately according to that policy with legal considerations. None of its subjects are “Nazi,” and the articles about them do not define them as such, and non-fringe reliable sources do not define them as such. The subjects include active organizations in Canada, including community organizations and churches, and the respective monuments commemorate historical organizations that may still have living past members. The list is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada.  —Michael Z. 15:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the Guardian a fringe source? Since it refers to a "monument dedicated to Nazi soldiers".[45] Although the current title is probably misleading. Mellk (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) So what is the urgent incident here? You and User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 want to delete article per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but haven't managed to push it through AfD, so you came here to cry libel, yes? Calm down and wait for AfD closure. ANI is not for content disputes./srs As the side note: of course, Galician Division of Waffen SS was the famous group of far-left queer anarchists and anti-fascists, and definetely not infamous Nazi collaborators./j Nh283721 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is to delete. Not sure what you mean by not managing to push. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion has not yet been closed, but, yes, the current !vote count is 7 to 3 in favor of deletion. BTW, please note my comments on your talk page concerning your sig and your username, which translates to "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL:

It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Page revisions containing libelous content should also be removed from the page history. Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences.

Galicia Division members were not Nazis. They were not eligible for membership in the Nazi party. It was a foreign legion formed up under the Nazis and its organizers’ and members’ aims are documented as not the aims of Nazism. No matter how loosely you interpret it as “Nazi,” it doesn’t justify the existence of the list and it doesn’t justify falsely labelling the other two members of the lists as Nazi or the Canadian organizations that put up these monuments as Nazis. —Michael Z. 19:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS, one of the most notorious of Nazi organizations, and they fought at the direction of SS commanders. The Waffen-SS was not part of the Wehrmacht, the regular German Army, and it did not come under their supervision. It was a Nazi organization. That some, most, or all of its ordinary members were not members of the Party, I do not doubt -- for that matter, most members of the SA stormtroopers were not members of the Nazi Party, and yet that is universally, and correctly, considered to be a Nazi organization. That the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) was a Nazi organization cannot be gainsaid, so there is no libel in calling monuments to its soldiers "Nazi monuments". (Although see below, where I agree that "Nazi collaborators" would be acceptable.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Since the article is under discussion at AfD, why was a report filed about it here? Is there something about editors' behavior in that discussion that requires admins to do something, or are you attempting to have an admin override the community with a supervote to delete an article which you are adamantly opposed to keeping?
  This report should be closed as inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  See the policy with legal considerations WP:LIBEL, which I quoted more fully above: “immediately” and “legal consequences” implies urgency. —Michael Z. 19:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Your claim of a LIBEL problem is extremely weak, and obviously merely a hook to attempt to delete the article in another fashion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a lie about my motives, @Beyond My Ken. Please assume good faith. I brought this here to get opinions on the libel question instead of taking immediate action.  —Michael Z. 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be much easier to AGF if you weren't so completely adamant about deleting the article in the AfD discussion, and your LIBEL argument wasn't so weak - truth is the enemy of claims of libel, and there's absolutely no doubt that "Nazi" properly describes a unit of the Waffen-SS, of whatever ethnicity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You’re pretending it isn’t a list of three things. Whatever the merits of that truth, it is not the whole truth.  —Michael Z. 20:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretending? I'm not pretending a darn thing. It's a list of three things, agreed. If so many Confederate monuments were taken down that the List of Confederate monuments and memorials only had three entries, it would still be a valid list article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• At least one reference from a facially-reliable source has been provided that supports the description (two actually, by my casual scan of the AFD and this ANI). WP:V wins, whether we think it's an offensive or incorrect term or not. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean the Guardian article that refers to “‘Nazi monument’” and “‘Nazi war monument’” in scare quotes?(It also says that the graffiti “Nazi war monument” was being investigated as a hate crime against Ukrainians.)

  Because this is what the graffiti says, hence the quotes. It would better to just call them monuments to Nazi collaborators. "Nazi monuments" is kinda misleading. Mellk (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I would have no objection to such a change in name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  It may or may not be misleading, we may or may not be able to write it in a clearer way, it may or may not actually merit an article. But all of that is definitely off-topic for ANI. Here the only concern is if it is pure libel to the extent that we must immediately short-circuit the AFD where such ideas might properly be discussed. DMacks (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  A very good point, thanks for trying to get us back on track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  This source only refers to one of the three list items. If the other two list items are not supported as Nazi then is it possibly libel? —Michael Z. 20:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Jarring

-EEng

• I haven't read this thread, but Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123, please remove the yellow highlight from your sig. It is too visually jarring. Thank you. El_C 20:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• And the tiny Ukrainian flags violate the proscription against using images in sigs. I have pointed this out on the user's talk page, but they have so far refused to make any change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, most of the edits of the user are disruptive (if I ever have a hour free time, I will file an AE request against them for continued disruptive editing on Ukrainian topics after multiple warnings), and on their talk page they go into so much detail trying to convince us they are not a sock, that I do not think they will last here long. Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Allow the AfD to run its course. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article a little, to add some balance, more is needed. The OP was reporting news and further notability correctly imo, however it has been a little high-jacked, although OP again, has tried to keep some balance. A few other articles in this vein are also showing a lot of undue weight and lack of balance and are leaned towards a more pro-Russian viewpoint, it is not overt, I would not expect it to be. It seems a few user names keep appearing and it may be a coincidence or it may be something else. So, not sure I have added much to the above discussion, however does wikipedia have a bot or an admin that is looking for any kind of consistent bias or lean, either left or right, or particularly at this time Putin, USSR, Russia Federations views, to try to move the goalpost a little/influence/obfuscate?? and any opposite applications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:7978:741F:E0A5:2787 (talk) 10:50, 25 November 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.

Multiple accounts

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.

---

Users Preposacion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Preposacion) and Anlyam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anlyam) are probably the same. Please investigate the possible use of multiple accounts as there may be more. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:7915:BEA9:DF1C:D3E9 (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Must be missing something, because I'm not seeing the basis for this claim in the respective edit histories. Either way if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please post it at WP:SPI. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 24 November 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 unsourced additions and uncivil behaviour by Arghoslent

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.

---

• Arghoslent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This new editor has repeatedly added unsourced content, notably at List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: [46], [47], [48], and others. When warned on their talk page, they found nothing better to say than "Where did you find a " disruptive editing"? Please find a girlfriend and fuck off" ([49]). Since they blanked their talk page five minutes later, I thought that they had come to their senses, and understood that such answers aren't constructive, to put it mildly. They kept re-adding the same unsourced content however [50]. After I reverted their edit and warned them once more, they blanked their talk page ([51]), re-added their edit, and came back to their weird ad hominem in the edit summary: "Find a girlfriend and get lost. Here's a source: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/МТ-Т Google and you'll find more sources" ([52]). After Ponyo warned them, they re-added their edit, putting a link to "video evidence" in their edit summary but still no citation, despite Ponyo having explicitly stated that inline citations were necessary ([53]). I once again reverted, and explained why their "sourcing" was still insufficient ([54]). This morning, they once again re-added their unsourced stuff, with no explanation whatsoever ([55]). I think a block is necessary at this point. BilletsMauves^€500 10:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you cancelled my edit with Ovid, GT-MU and MT-T. Now you are cancelling my edit with MT-T again and again. You ask for "sources".

- MT-T was developed and produced in Ukraine (even Wiki page says the same).

- The Ukrainian Army has MT-Ts in its equipment list. Wow, surprise!

- There are evidence of destroying at least of one MT-T by russian kamikaze drone at Youtube. And you saw it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAzLKvaulI)

What kind of source do you need? You're coming to my page and shit there with your ridiculous warnings about sources and threaten to block my account. And only after that I propose you to find a girlfriend and lost me.

Is is a watchman syndrome? Is it a kind of a nerding? Are you so

And now you're crying here and complain that I offended you.

Cry a lot. Arghoslent (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Cry a lot" is about as close to a declaration of being WP:NOTHERE as I have seen in some time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This repeated "find a girlfriend" theme is some awesome toxic masculinity. They're still edit warring with uncivil edit summaries even after this ANI thread was opened. Reading the above response, I'm not sure they have sufficient English skills. All this in two weeks and less than 50 edits. They should be sitewide indef blocked. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

SPA, constant edit warring, multiple personal attacks, this is not someone we need here. Someone please indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I'd already warned them about the requirement to reign rein in the incivility, and they're continuing to edit war was as well. Blocked indefinitely-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:06, 25 November 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:FF toho

Request concerning FF toho

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User against whom enforcement is requested

FF toho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Uyghur genocide discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 15:16, 10 November 2022 characterizing researcher Adrian Zenz as "far-right" in Wikivoice. An attributed characterization of the researcher as "far-right" was previously removed from the article.
2. 16:40, 10 November 2022 reverting to enforce the Wikivoice characterization of the researcher as "far-right". The edit summary accuses the filer of seeking "to obscure this with your own personal bias".

Diffs of any previous sanctions, if any

None that I can find, though the user has previously been warned for conduct in a Chinese Communist Party name-related move dispute.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

16:32, 10 November 2022

Additional comments by the editor filing complaint

FF toho has also expressed their dislike for Adrian Zenz's work on other pages, such as at Talk:Uyghur genocide where they first imply that they do not believe him to be a reliable researcher and later make this view quite explicit.

The Adrian Zenz article is under an indefinite BLP 1RR and an editnotice exists for the article that communicates this. I asked the editor to self-revert on the talkpage, but they did not do so. Instead, the content was removed as a BLP issue by Firefangledfeathers. Repeatedly re-inserting the "far-right" descriptor into the page, despite that descriptor having been removed from the page previously, is edit warring in violation of the 1RR restriction previously imposed by HighInBC. When these edits combined with the obvious expressed dislike for Zenz's work, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Along those lines, I am requesting the use of community-authorized discretionary sanctions to place a WP:TBAN on FF toho barring them from making edits about people related to the topic of Uyghur genocide, on any page, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:30, 10 November 2022‎

Discussion concerning FF toho

I have to say that it's normally not a good sign when a single editor appears across several contentious articles on my watchlist all at once. After seeing this I scouted through more of their contributions, and aside from having (reverted) after most of their edits all I'll say is, we shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, yet I can guess FF toho's. — Czello 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Most this editors edits seem to be related to communism and all of those show some bias. While most communism related topics will fall under one active sanction or another a TBAN for communism broadly construed should be considered rather a narrower one under as specific active sanction—blindlynx 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Eeesh, the initial edit that Red-tailed hawk took issue with is pretty egregious: the source says, in a discussion of how Zenz has been targeted by CCP propoganda, that he "has been portrayed on numerous occasions as a far-right pseudo researcher"; it strains belief that anyone attempting to portray Zenz fairly could use this to support a description of "far right" in wikivoice.

That said, as far as I can see FF toho only reverted once on that page; it's not a clearcut 1RR violation. Arguing that re-instating the words "far right" is technically a partial revert of this edit from July 2020 seems pretty much like fishing for a reason to sanction to me – that was 18 months before FF toho even created their account and I can't see that anybody suggested that counted as a revert when initially discussing this with them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Though I did not mention this in the initial filing, the second edit to the page re-inserted material that new accounts have previously tried to edit war into the article, such as in May of this year (1 2 3 4) that led to the new user being indeffed. That, of course, was not the first time somebody tried to insert similar material into the page, but re-inserting content that's been repeatedly contested throughout the page history is a revert. The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture. But they didn't sel-revert, haven't participated whatsoever in the talk page discussion on Talk:Adrian Zenz despite being pinged (though they did participate on another talk page before this report was filed.

On top of that, the reason for the sanction is more plainly that, as I stated in the filing above, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Even if you believe the 1RR violation is marginal, it's without question that FF toho's stated intent was to portray Zenz in a negative light. And, in seeking to portray Zenz negatively, the editor first made an egregious BLP violation and subsequently re-instated it after it was reverted against policy while accusing other editors of "personal bias" (which, by the way, is the same sort of rationale the new editor who was later indeffed stated in their edit summaries in May). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries provided by FF toho are so invective, that they ought to be revision deleted, like this one, in which they blithely called Mr. Zenz an antisemite (!) I support a topic ban from communism-, China- and Xinjiang-related articles on NOTHERE and GREATWRONGS grounds. Nutez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

" The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture."

Someone else reverted my changes before I even saw your talk page message. FF toho (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You gave me the message to self revert at 16:59, and I was infact going to do so, but at 17:00 someone else did it instead. You are leaving out crucial context and I don't find this nice. FF toho (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oof, here's a diff where they tried to claim Stalin shouldn't be referred to as a dictator based on a single primary source from the 50s: [56]. POV stuff aside, that's a pretty blatant misunderstanding of how sourcing works. I would support a topic ban as well, but that and the misuse of Wikivoice described above make me wonder if they'd need extra scrutiny on non-communism related edits as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Coracle (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why I first brought it up on the talk page which exists for exactly that purpose. FF toho (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Is this an AE discussion? If no, may I ask what type of discussion is it? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an ANI discussion in which I am requesting the imposition of discretionary sanctions under the uyghur genocide general sanctions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for copyvio. Several of FF toho's comments made have been copy-paste of reddit comments; Samwalton9 caught one of them at RSN. No comment on the validity of applying GS/Uyghur here. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that the user has been indeffed for an unrelated reason, might it be wise to close this discussion as moot? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Treating this case as (American) moot would be convenient, but not necessarily correct. Actions exercising the authority of the community as in GS stick in ways that actions like a block for copyright violations don't. While I don't anticipate any particular admin accepting an appeal here (if the editor ever appeals), an admin could accept one on the merits of an appeal that strictly stuck to whether the user would violate copyright again (to be fair, that would probably need to include an explanation about why the user was violating copyrights, which would probably necessarily include a discussion of the targets of the disruption listed here). Izno (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary promotions

Wikipedia user User:Inedits is unnecessary promoting Sirsi town all over the wikipedia, Even though it is not necessary and the topic is not asking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.50.48.208 (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

As it says in the box at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." --David Biddulph (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

To note that this is Inedits' second visit to this page in the last two days, see this section above. Gricehead (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

And it doesn't look as if he was notified on his user talk page about that one either. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Graham Hancock

I am not sure I understand what some people are talking about on the Graham Hancock talk page, and why people are throwing around the term "white supremacist", but because I am Jewish, I find this really gets under my skin. This edit Just because I did an atop,abot code close for something I really didn't like. Something feels a miss, strange people are really come out of the woodwork since the Ancient Apocalypse programme aired on netflix. So forgive my confusion and posting here. But why are these IPs being this aggressive and is it possible to semi-protect the talk page for a while? Govvy (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The short version, Govvy, is that the "Lost Civilization" trope going back to Ignatius Donnelly's Atlantis, the Mound Builder myths, etc., has a definite history of sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit white supremacism. I am not aware of Hancock every saying anything like this explicitly, but he aligns himself with a tradition that has such a history. As far as "strange people," I tend to believe this is a symptom of what one academic I respect calls "weird shitology" and whenever it gets a turn in the mainstream. I don't blame you for being irked, but the disruption seems fairly controlled for now. Still, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the reply, I could possibly be over-reacting, but anything supremacist, nazi stuff, even the post above this one makes my skin crawl. Govvy (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Renewed disruptive edits by 165.16.47.4

This IP was previously blocked in May 2022 (see their talk page) for disruptive editing at Almohad Caliphate and Abd al-Mu'min, mostly for trying to label the subjects of these articles as "Moroccan". They've now repeated the same kind of edits at both articles, replacing agreed-upon wording with "Moroccan" again. I've reverted them and posted a fresh warning on the IP talk page, but they've resorted to repeating their edits afterward. (This could belong to WP:AN/EW as a result, but to me it seems like a general WP:NOTHERE problem from the start.) They replied on the IP talk page by claiming they're just using sources; they're not, they're just vaguely citing general references that don't support their edits. R Prazeres (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced

91.216.181.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) won't stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content to BLPs, after multiple warnings (also see 91.216.181.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). – ².O.^Boxing 20:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked 91.216.181.0/24 for a month. The range is rife with unsourced edits to BLPs.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A review of the edits made by the IP range would be helpful. Even a quick spot check shows a bunch of BLP and WP:DOB violations.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Raphael Warnock

Requesting rev/deletion of defamatory attack. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Done--thank you, Acroterion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the putatively static IP for a week. Thanks for posting here, 2601. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising banners: imminent clash between enwiki on one side and WMF + Board of Trustees on the other

For those of you who aren't aware, things are getting quite tense at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign, with the Board of Trustees swooping in en masse to, er, discourage us from enacting the results of the RfC. Any input, whatever your opinion about the banners or the parties involved, is welcome to help resolve this situation. Fram (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Still less begging than Wikipedia, come on guys. El_C 09:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Not to question your methods, as I'm sure they're effective (and I don't mean this in a sarcastic way), perhaps some better vocabulary choices than "imminent clash" would be appropriate? The BoT's response also seems pretty decent all things considered. About "enacting the results of the RfC": I think it's clear that it's not in enwiki's mandate to hide those banners using Common.css, although the threat of doing this might be effective, any reasonable closer will find that the proposed "Implementation" clearly fails WP:CONEXCEPT and cannot be implemented. Any admin who actually tries to make a change to Common.css would be exercising extremely poor judgement. Running additional banners as proposed here seems like a slightly more realistic implementation...ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that any time conexcept has been invoked, things have actually turned out well for the WMF. When they wanted to implement or keep some software, project, ... on enwiki and enwiki decided, normally through an Rfc, that it wasn´t wanted on enwiki, the result was alit of huffing, puffing, threatening, ... and in the end the Wmf giving in. The "pretty decent" response from the board already mentions wheel warring as if the issue will be with whoever tries to implement the Rfc results a second time, never mind that the actual problem will be whoever reverses that to do the will of the Wmf. It´s best to keep the discussion at the village pump, this was just meant as a heads up slash invitation to join the discussion there: but if you start from the position that conexcept rules and we can´t overrule this, then you basically tell them to continue doing whatever they like, and to put whatever text they want on our main page with no matter what farfetched justification. Which is of course an acceptable pisition, it just isn´t mine. Fram (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: your input (admins and non-admins alike) is now welcome at Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners. Fram (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

KetchupSalt and accusation in censure of the Holocaust

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

KetchupSalt is not autoconfirmed, but they insist on being able to edit and even edit-war in articles related to Russian-Ukrainian war broadly construed [57]. When I gave them a Ds alert and explained that they might not edit the article because of the general sanctions community imposed on the topic area, they called this "defending fascists" and "censure of the Holocaust" [58]. These are not accusations I take lightly, from any users. Could something be done about these accusation please. Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think everyone should censure the Holocaust. EEng 12:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe Ymblanter meant to say the user is not extended confirmed. I don't think you were actually accused of censoring the Holocaust, Ymblanter, but it's bad enough as it is. Blocked for two weeks. But I wasn't sure what best to do here — no prejudice to another admin changing the duration, or to changing the sitewide block to some other scope. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. Indeed, not extended confirmed (this is what I also correctly communicated to them). Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Tiginbeg

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.

---

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

This "brand new" user Tiginbeg started editing on 21 November 2022. Their first edit was complaining about mention of the Armenian genocide at the talk page of Turkish War of Independence [59]. What brand new user knows of WP:NPOV and WP:VD right off the bat? Anyways, he goes on to complain about lack of sources in x and y. Yet he ironically later makes this article Gilles Veinstein with the unsourced statement; "Veinstein, drew the reaction of the Armenian diaspora by stating that the Armenian Genocide could not be defined as genocide and that it was instigated by Armenian militias. As a result, Veinstein received death threats and his career was jeopardised."

They also went on to add the category Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide at three different articles which doesn't really confirm it [60] [61] [62].

They also attempted twice to remove the description of what a denier of the Armenian genocide is at Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide [63] [64].

Their third edit was at their userpage [65], where they notably added the template "This user supports mandatory registration." What brand new user knows of such template let alone has an opinion on it?

Some classic WP:NPA made by Tiginbeg towards one of our editors because they were reverted by him; You do not have to believe the propaganda imposed on you by the Armenian government.

Tiginbeg might be related to the massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia [66], whose members were shamelessly denying the Armenian genocide as seen in the thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems absurd. I knew those people denied the Armenian genocide. I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean you have to blame me. WP:BITE

"What brand new user knows of WP:NPOV and WP:VD right at the bat?"

It is possible to learn how to use Wikipedia on the Internet. Tiginbeg (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Tiginbeg's first contribution is a comment on Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Violation_of_neutral_point_of_view, saying that the mention of Armenian genocide in the lead is intended for "vandalism", something that's supported by dozens of WP:RS [67]. Other things include putting Armenian genocide denial in "quotes", claiming that Turkey's denialist policy is "unsourced, serious claim", then when pointed to the sources in the article, calling RS like historian Taner Akçam "infamous charlatan". Their personal attack against me (I haven't even talked to this user) solidifies the above, "You do not have to believe the propaganda imposed on you by the Armenian government". They also edit warred and removed text from the genocide deniers category with "WP:NPOV" and "WP:VD". I believe this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia as evident by their denialist pov push and personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's strange that you didn't mention the personal attack on me by user 331dot. "I don't know, and don't need to know, if you are Turkish or not, but if you are, consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe." "Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative."

@ZaniGiovanni mate, I tag you and show you the sources but you don't even reply. :/

These two people always think they're right. And classically they write:

-rv, sock)

-rv, disruption by obvious sock

All I see are 2 people attacking me with ridiculous allegations. Tiginbeg (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a report of either of those two. Also, ZaniGiovanni didn't even say something that could remotely be interpreted as rude in that diff, thus making your attack against him even more ridiculous.

These two people always think they're right. And classically they write

How do you know that? Weren't you new here?

It is possible to learn how to use Wikipedia on the Internet.

It is indeed, especially if you have used another account before. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"How do you know that? Weren't you new here?"

I can see that from your editing history.

"It is indeed, especially if you have used another account before."

I think your next objection will go something like this: How do you know how to use a keyboard? Tiginbeg (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

So you went on to investigate the editing history of both ZaniGiovanni and me, both who have been here for years? Was that on your previous account or this one? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please keep your ridiculous questions to yourself. You're being ridiculous.

Then let me ask you something like this:

Why are you undoing my edits? Or have you been following me from the moment I registered? Tiginbeg (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't called you anything. I reverted you two times, that's the limit of my interaction with you. From above, I'm inclined to believe that you're a sockpuppet because of remarks such as these, especially given that I haven't even talked to you prior to this ANI; "These two people always think they're right. And classically they write: rv, sock...". What I do strongly believe though is that you're an WP:SPA with denialist tropes and editing pattern, topped with personal attack. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

what you wrote looks like this: I think he's a puppet because he's breathing. (omg) Tiginbeg (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tiginbeg: I'm not involved and I'm not claiming you're a sockpuppet. But I'd like you to explain the meaning of this edit. I'd also appreciate it if you can tell me what "propaganda imposed on you by the Armenian government" means. Please be aware that users may be sanctioned for such edits as they are not constructive. Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means

"I don't know, and don't need to know, if you are Turkish or not, but if you are, consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe." "Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative."

A rage against user 331dot. I wrote something like that because I was angry with him. But I don't see anyone warning user 331dot? Are the rules only for me? Tiginbeg (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

In the discussions [68], [69], you were saying that Armenian genocide being in the article is "vandalism" despite it having dozens of WP:RS [70]. You were also saying there is no state level denialist policy in Turkey, claiming there are no sources for it, which is just false. There is an entire section in the Armenian genocide denial regarding Turkey. Later when it was shown to you that it is sourced, you called an RS and historian Taner Akçam, whom you presumably don't like, an "infamous charlatan". How are you comparing this to your personal attack against me when I haven't even interacted with you prior to this? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds like nonsense. You can't always be right. You need to realise that. Tiginbeg (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• We really don't need to spend any more time with this user. I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 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:Kitchen Knife

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.

---

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

Kitchen Knife made a messy copy/paste move at East West Rail. A request was made at WP:RM/TR by Mattdaviesfsic to move the page to its original location. Although there was some move history, it seemed sensible to move the page to its original location before all the move disruption, so I performed a page swap. Kitchen Knife did not like this, demanded I move the page back, and accused me of "vandleising on behalf of a clique. I explained that I made the move in response to a technical move request and suggested they open a WP:RM discussion. They responded with further demands and accusations of vandalism, after which I asked them to desist. They opened a requested move at Talk:East_West_Rail#Requested_move_20_November_2022. Here they appear to simultaneously acknowledge they made a mistake yet continue to accuse us of BSing and bullying. As this is a very serious allegation, I'm reporting here. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You clearly know that having a private chat does not constitute getting a consensus. You had also acknowledged that I'd admitted my fault but you still carried on after that asking for contrition. The first bit constitutes the BS & the second bit the bullying.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, these are serious accusations. If you are going to continue making them then please provide evidence so the admins can take the appropriate action. Polyamorph (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the "private chat" mentioned above is this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#East West Rail now the East West Main Line. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I explained that it was public, not private, at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#East West Rail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And I explained why you where wrong in that you or anyone else hadn't announced or provided a link to it the group had kept it to itself. Like having a meeting that you claim anyone can attend but only making the people you want to attend aware of the meeting. Then claiming if someone had turnrd up at the meeting they would have been allowed in, so it was public. Even though the chances of someone randomly turning up at some place to see if an unannounced meeting happening were 0.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I also requested that the established title of "East West Rail" be reinstated, but at at WP:RFHM, because repairing a cut-paste move requires a history merge rather than a simple page swap, and this case was complicated by the multiple moves. Certes (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that info. It appears Sdrqaz performed the history merge prior to my swap. Polyamorph (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Page histories have become screwed up. I have found these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history - starts off with a negative byte count, and then has more than 70,000 removed from that
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Rail&action=history - contains an edit timed at 22:05, 19 November 2022 showing an increase of +73,210 bytes, yet the diff shows no change at all
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Rail&action=history

There may be more problems with these pages, and may be more pages involved. Is somebody able to move the misplaced edits back to their proper histories? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I got the histories sorted out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe so, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I usually find that the easiest way of fixing a cut-and-paste move, provided that it is caught early enough, is to simply revert both the paste and the cut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks – that's a useful tip for the future, but I think I was too late this time. (The confused history makes it hard to tell.) Certes (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife, you really need to stop this conspiracy theory stuff (talk of a "clique"). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand what a conspiracy is, rather than just trot out random phrases.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe TBAN from rail if they can't abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. in that area. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I want nothing to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways or any other clique.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Support indef or siteban after reading through their talk page history. This pattern of incivility and battleground behavior has been going on all year. Levivich (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone block for now? They appear to be continuing their incivility here and completely unaware of the disruption they have / still are causing. Polyamorph (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You really are unbelievable..--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I believe a block would be prudent at this time to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia". Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree you should be blocked.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

On what basis? Polyamorph (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor's tendentious behaviour in the past (look around November 2021, for example) has been a thorn in the side of a number of railway-related editors in good standing. I would definitely support a topic ban following expire of the recently-imposed all-contributions block. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I find Kitchen Knife's attitude here towards literally every user who expresses an opinion completely out of line. Seeing that the user already has several shorter blocks for harassment, a longer block might seem appropriate Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So being critical of others is not acceptable and pointing out their errors is not acceptable?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Doing so while acting like an arse, such as you're doing here, is not. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Kitchen Knife needs to cut out the talks about cliques and the condescending tone to their posts e.g. "That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up". I could hear the condescension in that post. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Can yu hear it in "More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph"--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't being condescending towards you there. I genuinely can't understand why you would choose to create such a mess. If you are unable to move a page because you don't have the required rights, then ask someone who actually knows what they're doing to assist. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that they look at WP:BRD. Kitchen Knife made a BOLD change (in a poor way) and it was reverted. Both of which are appropriate actions (if you ignore the method of the move) and the next step would be to start a neutrally worded discussion to gain consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Anybody can make a mistake or misunderstand. I doubt that there is anyone here who has never "corrected an obvious error" only to have to come back to admit to the error of their ways. The problem with this user is that they do not appear to have this facility for self-reflection. They cannot take polite advice but rather just delete it (diff) and respond with a diatribe (diff}. They seem to leap to the conclusion that their cock-ups can only be a conspiracy so they persist in digging themselves deeper into the hole. This incident has absorbed a silly amount of time of multiple editors and administrators. We really don't need this kind of nonsense. ≥I suggest that this user be blocked until they can show that they have achieved a reasonable level of judgement and reflection. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC) extended slightly --00:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And I suggest you learn what a conspiracy is before bandying it around at random people unthinkingly doing things without fully consulting is not a conspiracy. To be a conspiracy people have to know they are doing something underhand and then agree to cooperate together to do that thing and hide it. I have not at any time suggested that they deliberately hide it, they simply talked amongst themselves as cliques do and forgot about the rest of the world. If you think people should be apologising then the people who decided to have a discussion without telling anyone outside of their little group it is going on should also be apologising but that seems to be rather absent. I have admitted it was a mistake, unlike the people who established a consensus without allowing the majority of editors the chance to comment or even know the discussion was happening. It was all calming down I'd admitted my mistake but someone decided to come in and stir it up again, perhaps you should be looking at them notme.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You continue to maintain this aggrievement while studiously ignoring everybody who tells you that the UKRAIL discussion was started after the original no-consensus pagemove occurred, and that it quickly coalesced on an agreement that that the move should be reverted. At no point was there any attempt to conceal the discussion from any other contributor. Your continued refusal to accept that it was you who provoked this problem by turning your simple and easily-understood failure to notice the original move into a brand-new no-consensus move (and a copy-and-paste move to boot) is the root of this entire incident, but all you seem prepared to do is to double-down on insisting that you are the victim of some sly scheme to exclude you from the formation of an imagined and in-any-case-unimportant consensus. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned a sly scheme or even intimated that there was one or even any sort of coordination. That seem to be yous and some other's irrational delusion. You seem to have ignored everything that was said in the message you commented on. You seem incapable of simple English comprehension--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC).

Far from calming down, you continued to accuse the community of being a "clique", accused established users of "vandalism", and accused us of "bullying". This is not quietly admitting you were wrong and taking responsibility for your actions which were quite disruptive. You could end this now by accepting responsibility and retracting your wild claims of a conspiracy against you. Polyamorph (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusibg two different things. You could end this by stopping spouting nonsense, you again don't seem to know what the word conspiracy means. You continued misrepresentation is more of the bullying I've accused you of and you continue to provide ample proof of it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Your attitude is appalling and uncooperative. No one is bullying you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's quite enough, I think. If Kitchen Knife is unable to take part in a collaborative encyclopedia without persistent incivility and rudeness to others (especially as they caused the problem in the first place) then they should not be trying. Last block was 72 hours, this one is a week, and I suspect a future one might be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was all set to block them myself until reading this message and seeing it had already been done. I would support an indef block if they learn nothing from this one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely, to @Black Kite and @Thryduulf, and I do get it, but I do feel we should also note that this editor usually does do a lot of good work – just quiet routine stuff – and if they can avoid these occasional explosions then we should be hoping to retain them. I know it's the Last Chance Saloon and the rest but if you look at their contribs and their Talk page history then those things do paint a rather mixed picture and there is perhaps hope for retaining a productive editor. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still throwing around accusations of bullying on their talk page. Not being able to work collaboratively really outweighs any productive edit history they might have. Such users are high maintenance for all. Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes – their Talk page seems to be turning quite rapidly into a train wreck, no pun intended. Sigh. DBaK (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I hope someday we can steer the culture of Wikipedia away from this old-fashioned notion that people are allowed to be persistently uncivil or combative if they have shown a history of good/decent contributions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 you cannot be a net-positive contributor to the project with both at-least decent contributions and an ability to work and communicate collaboratively. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't collaborate with other editors, and chase them away from the project or make them hesitant to be a good editor themselves, then you are not a "productive editor". Civility is a pillar here and it's ignored a lot of times because "Oh they are a good editor". No one is bigger than the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm slightly gobsmacked by some of these replies to me. You did actually read what I said, right? I seem, to me at least, not to have said some of the things for which I am being dismissed-in-summary here. Best to all DBaK (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I did read what you said. My observation was in general, reflecting upon various other apologia I have seen during my years on Wikipedia, where we've repeatedly forgiven transgressions of certain editors - I remember those ArbCom cases quite clearly, but I won't name specific names - because they had a history of excellent contributions. You may not have said those exact words, but it prompted me to reminisce about those days, in the hopes that we've perhaps made some progress since then. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope so too and I was very happy to read this clarification. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Might be time to remove Talk page access, as they're just removing comments they don't like and edit warring over it. Clearly not going to file an actual unblock request either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Since when is removing comments from your own talk page a problem? Especially when the comments are calling your behavior "assholish"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

KK's behavior was definitely assholish (as perhaps a half-dozen editors, mostly uninvolved in the dispute, have pointed out to them) and my advice to them was sound; but I am a bit surprised that anyone bothered reverting its removal (I wouldn't have). --JBL (talk) 17:49, 22 November 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.

Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 is not here to build an encyclopaedia

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.

---

Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is, in principle, a matter for arbitration enforcement, but I am really busy in real life, and it is difficult for me to find an hour to find the diffs needed for a good report. May be we could solve the problem here easier. The user has essentially zero useful contributions out of 400+ they have made here. On their user page (which is on Meyta, because keeping this here would be a policy violation) they say they are a blocked sock - claiming of course this was a mistake of a blocking administrator. They have been featured at this very noticeboard yesterday. What they are doing right now is edit-warring at Kryvyi Rih, claiming that Kryvyi Rih, the Russian romanization of the name, is a "former name". I see seven reverts in the last 10 days, this is the last one. They are not extended-confirmed, and the community prohibited non-extended-confirmed users to edit articles related to the Russian-Ukrainian war. The user was made aware of this, but they do not seem to care. They claim there is consensus. There is indeed a RM at the talk page, which is ongoing, and the "consensus" they claim to exist is their agreement with another blocked sock. At the very least, the edit-warring must stop, but Wikipedia would not lose anything if this user gets an indefinite block. Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Also here, 10 minutes ago, a different article, nothing even close to consensus. Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring with an administrator diff should make it a deal. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @ToBeFree: Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hm. At 488 edits, the current reason for the block is comparatively weak. I'm not sure if my action has actually shortened a tedious discussion or complicated everything. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Of their 488 edits, the first few were in the area, so it's not like they did 487 approved ones and then slipped up. Nor was it a case of 488 good faith edits, one of their last ones was to delete much of a page without explanation. I think you were correct. CT55555(talk) 12:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• See also this on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 26 November 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.

Active vandal is destroying the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 page

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

---

• Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an IP vandal actively vandalizing the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 page. I am already working on reverting their disruptive edits. Admin intervention may be necessary. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Phew, the matter seems to have been handled for now, thanks to JCW555. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:AIV is that way, buddy. For the next time this happens. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 21:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

IP editor on several IPs mass reverting articles

@2402:3A80:65E:5710:AC4A:CE9:B3DA:F1D9

@42.106.237.168

@2402:3a80:4190:56c4:5cec:fa4f:2353:88f8

Repeatedly deleting all content from articles Esho Maa Lakshmi, Phoolmoni, Bene Bou here and redirecting them to Zee Bangla

Deleting Meera (2015 TV series) and redirecting to Colors Bangla

Removing references and wikilinks in mass here

Deleting talk pages here not sure if link will work after I fix so before after

Removing citations and then flagging the article as unreferenced. here

I'm sure I've missed some but this is beyond disruptive. Marleeashton (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding more redirected pages: Roilo Pherar Nimontron, Mukhosh Manush Tumi Ele Taai

Adding more IPs @2402:3A80:69D:880B:5CEC:FA4F:2353:88F8 Marleeashton (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be providing reasoning for their edits, being concerns on notability grounds. They're definitely right in the case of WP:BLPs that have no referencing. Have you tried discussing the issue? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve left many notes on talk pages - no response to anything. They’re basically deleting articles without any consensus or feedback from others. So these articles don’t get a chance to be improved or given references. And in some cases deleting the references one day and then the next day justifying the redirect by saying ‘no references’ (which I linked above) Marleeashton (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

‎User:99.245.174.5

Continued disruptive editing over several articles by a blocked user, ‎User:Cobretti1, who is ip evading under ‎User:99.245.174.5. Filed SPI[71] and AIV[72]. User now resorts to personal attacks.[73][74] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the IP for a month but a longer duration may also be warranted given the IP seems to be used only by that person. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks Uncivil behavior from AndyTheGrump

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.

---

• Previous AN/I report filed by ZLEA on AndyTheGrump 21 days ago

User:AndyTheGrump, who has engaged in a series of long content disputes over Gustave Whitehead and Whitehead No. 21, and has been warned for personal attacks earlier this month, has recently resumed attacking uncivil behavior targeted at myself and User:Steelpillow. Here, Andy said And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright., a veiled attack on our intelligence. Furthermore, when I asked him to retract the attack uncivil comment, he told me less politely to get stuffed. And finally, to add literal insult to injury, he wrote a less-than-flattering message on his user page, with yet another attack uncivil comment in the edit summary. It should be noted that Andy was blocked numerous times in the early 2010s for incivility and personal attacks. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ZLEA, you kicked that off by accusing AndyTheGrump of having a conflict of interest with zero evidence. Baiting somebody and then heading to ANI is poor form. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I had little time to read over the Smithsonian article, so I easily mistook Andy’s poorly worded userpage edit for admission of a COI. I’m not proud of my mistake, but in no way did I intend to bait Andy for a personal attack. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that's right. I stated that I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Right. Or Orville. Because I'm not. Or at least, if I am, I'm not aware of it. As for why I felt it necessary to make this statement, see the context: I'd been accused, by two different contributors, of having a 'conflict of interest' in regards to events which occurred (or more likely, didn't) in 1901. The entire thread is an exercise in absurdity, as the two go to increasing lengths to avoid addressing the substantive issues regarding Wikipedia's coverage of Whitehead. And note that the thread started with User:Steelpillow calling me a "PoV edit warrior" [75]. Like the previous ANI thread, [76] ZLEA is engaging in blatant partisanship, accusing me of incivility while ignoring that of others.

There are serious issues involved in this dispute, involving multiple articles. I'm not entirely sure as the best way to resolve it. Or even if Wikipedia is capable of resolving it. I would however suggest that a contributor who attempts to stifle discussion by proposing "a voluntary topic ban" for me, [77] might do more for the benefit of the project, and for the benefit of aviation history, if they were to consider taking their own advice. Along with their sidekick who seems to have a convenient habit of turning up whenever the discussion lacks new absurdities or misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:CIR issues evident in this report and at Talk:Whitehead No. 21 make me suspect that topic bans for a couple of the participants are needed. The misreading of AndyTheGrump's user page text is sufficiently breathtaking, but the follow-up of drawing attention to the fiasco by making this report shows some action is needed to protect Wikipedia from enthusiasts who are unable to see anything other than their desired outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq I have already provided an explanation for misreading his userpage. Do you believe a single incident of being short on time is a competence issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have now realized the depth of the problem, why have you not requested that this report be closed? By the way, you seem to be implying that I was not capable of finding your explanation. Is that civil? Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Because this isn't about an isolated personal attack. Andy has a long history of abrasiveness, incivility, and personal attacks. This is just the latest in a long chain of uncivil behavior which has found its way to AN/I more times than I care to count. Andy has proven time and time again over the last decade that he is quick to jump to incivility, and it needs to end. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you cared to count, you'd soon realise that counting my entire posting history to the admin noticeboards isn't a good metric for how often I've been reported for incivility. Or for anything else much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack, self-admitted incivility, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks, "highly abusive" language, "severe" personal attack, "gross incivility", more incivility, shall I continue? - ZLEA _T\^C 04:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Disinterested participants in this thread may wish to look at the dates. Along with the closing statements... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The point of listing the previous AN/I discussions is not to show their outcomes, but to show Andy's less-than-civil history. I don't believe all of those users who reported you were on the right side of their respective disputes, but it clearly shows a pattern of incivility (sometimes in response to incivility, which is still no excuse). - ZLEA _T\^C 04:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Other people may consider 'outcomes' of relevance, even if you don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't work for the Smithsonian. I've never been to the Smithsonian. I've never been on the same continent as the Smithsonian. And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright. Or Orville... -- the last line reads to me as a joke, apparently meant to highlight what AndyTheGrump thought was the absurdity of the COI accusation, not meant as an insult to anyone's intelligence. So I don't see the problem with that. "Less politely get stuffed" and "I'd clearly overestimated the common sense of at least two contributors" are not perfect, but it would be remiss not to acknowledge the timeline/context here, which is editors pushing fringe claims, attacking AndyTheGrump for pushing back on those claims, and then AndyTheGrump responding in a grumpy (ha) fashion only after these discussions became about him personally rather than the content at issue. Most people would get frustrated enough to walk away from battleground behaviour like this, but if you do stick around, you're going get annoyed. I'd really rather we didn't reward this behaviour where you poke and prod at someone and get them annoyed enough to say "less politely get stuffed" so you can get them sanctioned and win your little content war. Endwise (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

My accusation of a COI was based on an (admittedly flawed and rushed) interpretation of his userpage edit. It was an isolated, good faith assumption made during a time which I had less than a minute to check my watchlist and respond to Andy. Also, no one is pushing the fringe claims that Whitehead's machine flew. Please read the discussions at Talk:Whitehead No. 21, you'll notice that despite Andy's claims, no fringe theories are being pushed. The discussion is a matter of NPOV regarding the inclusion of the replica of the Whitehead No.21, which is hardly fringe. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(ec) If "no one is pushing the fringe claims that Whitehead's machine flew", why did SteelPillow feel it necessary to link to his own personal blog, (see this edit [78]) which does exactly that? A blog which promotes a recurring theme amongst Whitehead supporters, concerning the Smithsonian being the bad guys, supressing the 'truth' supposedly because of an agreement made in 1948. The only reason being associated with the Smithsonian would involve a CoI, even if I was (I'm not) would be if there was anything of substance to this dubious assertion. Whitehead's claims aren't rejected by 'the Smithsonian', they are rejected by mainstream aviation historians, regardless of who they work for - this whole 'CoI' thing is itself based around a fringe conspiracy theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I can't see it because it goes against my sidekick nature, but can you please quote the part which states that Whitehead flew before the Wrights? Steelpillow's website makes no fringe claims, and reporting facts (I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of the 1948 Smithsonian-Wright contract) which are used by supporters of the fringe claims is not itself fringe. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To quote directly from SteelPillow's blog The evidence these sources present on the No. 21 and No. 22 would in any normal circumstance be enough to establish a viable claim to flight. By far the greater part of it supports the suggestion that the No. 21 aeroplane did indeed perform as claimed. In particular I would draw attention to the large number of photographs of the No.21 on the ground while in broad daylight. No other Whitehead machine was so attractive to photographers, nor his posing with friends and family alongside it, and one has to ask why. The most reasonable explanation is that it was special, it achieved something that its twenty predecessors had not – it flew. And note that the whole blog is built around the premise that it is the Smithsonian, and not a broader consensus, that prevents Whitehead being recognised. Just look at the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong about that one. (Note that this does not change my opinion on Andy's uncivil behavior.) - ZLEA _T\^C 04:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that you've already been wrong once already, with your rushed 'CoI' claim, perhaps you should slow down a little. And maybe think about how well you would have responded to such an entirely unwarranted claim about you. In a thread that began with accusations of being a 'POV warrior'. Accusations that I note you still have failed to make any comment on regarding their 'civility'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll make a comment on Steelpillow's actions when you show me that there is a pattern of disruptive and/or uncivil behavior. I haven't seen any attempts from you to address his incivility. In fact, you seem to only bring up his behavior when you want to turn the attention away from your own behavior. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The pattern I'm more concerned about is the persistent misuse of Wikipedia to promote fringe claims concerning Whitehead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have concerns about this edit by Steelpillow: [79], where they write: Read here how critical I am of his archly confessed former employer, and understand his relentless attacks on me! (Steelpillow is apparently referring to AndyTheGrump and the Smithsonian, respectively, and links to his blog https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/whitehead.html). They then write that Andy's (erstwhile?) running dog is honouring their contract with the Wrights, alleging some sort of a conspiracy between Andy, Wikipedia, and the Smithsonian. This just seems bizarre and over the top, quite apart from the "PoV pusher" accusations and such. Perhaps a topic ban for Steelpillow is in order? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  @K.e.coffman: The putative contract with the Wrights is the famed binding clause that the Smithsonian Institution will never challenge their claim to primacy, on pain of having to return their Wright Flyer. This clause effectively forbids them from acknowledging the Whitehead source material as valid. They have publicly admitted the COI this creates for an institution dedicated to historical fact. A book, "History by Contract" has been written on the subject and the controversy over it all is well documented. All those involved in the conversation knew that perfectly well. Please do not read conspiracy-level hidden meanings into my remarks, or you may find yourself to be the one who is "bizarre and over the top". I respond more deeply to your other concerns below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• "Get stuffed" is far from the most civil reaction, but to construe that Wilbur statement by AndyTheGrump as a "personal attack" denotes a level of touchiness venturing into trout slap country, honestly, and a number of us might react to such an absurd provocation less civilly than Andy did. I would, myself, question the common sense of an editor doing so, let alone going to ANI over it. Picking fights over such threadbare grounds is not what I'd myself call civil, and ZLEA would be very well advised to drop the stick and back off before someone suggests a tban for them as a way to resolve things. Ravenswing 04:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I regrettably overreacted by calling the behavior a "personal attack". I have fixed the original post accordingly. I'll also back away from the discussion for now. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ZLEA began this thread with an accusasation of a personal attack. That has now been changed to an accusation of uncivil behavior. I am sorry, ZLEA, but And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright is neither of those two things. Please reconsider your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, is that not obfuscating what the original report was about? An admission of mistake was correct but is not editing the original post making it more confusing for someone who just stumbled across this thread? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 05:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

So far, this discussion seems to only have concerned the thread on Talk:Whitehead No. 21. Given that ZLEA also mentioned the Whitehead biography in their first post, people may also want to take into consideration Talk:Gustave Whitehead, and in particular, the thread on 'neutrality', [80] for further evidence of what I've been encountering. Apparently, being "unable to recognise" pure speculation about entirely undocumented who-knows-whats are sufficient grounds for ZLEA to question my ability to "contribute neutrally to this topic". [81] And note further incivility from SteelPillow further in the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Steelpillow here. I seem to be getting a lot of column inches in this discussion. For what it's worth, in this long-running dispute AndyTheGrump was the first to bring my website into it; he hinted a couple of times that he could expose me as a PoV editor before eventually posting a link. I can dig out the diffs if you all feel the need. Yes I have a minority opinion on the matter, but I am well aware of the pitfalls of being an WP:EXPERT editor as well as of the benefits. I do not bring my tentative opinion on the facts to Wikipedia's articles, I bring the salient facts as reported in RS. Note too that my essay primarily concerns the conduct of the parties involved, it is not a deep advocacy of either position. It concludes with a call on both sides to clean up their act. What I do find invidious is the obsessive and uncivilly-expressed claim here that I am pushing a fringe claim in its own right. I am not, I am documenting a nasty dispute in which neither side emerges with any credit. So now let us turn to my edits here. Check the article histories and you will see that I am trying to clean up the articles and remove both fringe and pseudosceptic rhetorc in equal measure. I am also trying to prevent the deletion of perfectly valid content documenting relevant aspects of the controversy, as reported by RS. AndyTheGruump appears to believe that suppressing NPOV balance is a good thing, and has taken grave and uncivil exception to attempts to maintain it. He has carried this campaign across half a dozen discussions, all to no effect; making a false accusation a hundred times over does not make it true, and the majority of editors understand that. He has openly declared that he is quite prepared to be disruptive if it is the only way of making his lone voice heard. That is not what consensus is about. His accusations of fringe activity are belied by his abysmal failure to garner support in these endless discussions, and anybody here who wishes to swallow his baseless charges whole really does need to read through them all, and join in to bring enough new voices to reverse the emerging consensus. Again, I can post links if they are needed. The Smithsonian has openly admitted that it has a COI in the matter, and anybody who supports its position needs to recognise the dangers of pushing that COI bias here. All this perhaps explains why I too jumped to the wrong conclusion about Andy's personal (lack of) COI, for which I now apologise unreservedly. It would be helpful if he could do the same for his wholly unsupported accusations of fringe PoV-pushing and avowed intent to ignore editorial consensus. But we are here, for a second time within a week or two, because he persists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, diffs are needed. Making accusations without diffs is tantamount to a personal attack. But be careful that your diffs actually support the accusations being made. Those that have been cited by ZLEA have turned out to be wrong, and they have admitted to making errors three times in this discussion, so they have essentially lost any credibility they came in with. AndyTheGrump's citation from Steelpillow's blog, on the other hand, directly supports the claim that he made about ZLEA's attitude towards Whitehead's machine. Pending all the diffs that Steelpillow is going to provide, I think Johnuniq is correct in saying that some topic bans need to be dealt out, even for editors who are self-professed "experts". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I would probably have said "fuck off" rather than "get stuffed", and that would have been justified. ZLEA and Steelpillow seem intent on introducing a false balance into articles whereby a fringe conspiracy theory (the Smithsonian has obviously persuaded almost all real experts to peddle a falsehood) is given equal weight. At the very least a topic ban is called for from anything to do with Whitehead or the Wright brothers. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 27 November 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.

Robin6221

Disruptive edits with accusative edit summaries made by an unregistered user with a dynamic IP adress, (diffs: [82] [83] [84]) resulted in the page being protected. A newly registered users (Robin6221) returns to the same protected page and continues same disruptive edits with the accusative edit summaries. Diff [85]. Edit summaries made in Turkish include, "you are lying" and "you can't hide it". Ecrusized (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: As stated at the top of this page and when you edit this page, you must notify the user you are reporting. In addition, although the user has little experience (nor do you), they created their account and started editing in February 2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to do that, I did it now although a bit late. Ecrusized (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor refusing to communicate

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.

---

Angryskies is engaging in a slow edit war and refusing to communicate. Case in being Deloitte where editor has reinstated his post fives times in a month:

• 21 October
• 27 October
• 4 November
• 11 November
• 21 November

Not technically a breach of WP:3RR, hence I have not taken to that noticeboard.

Multiple attempts to communicate with the editor both through the edit summary and their own talk page with the editor just deleting without responding and then reinstating their post.

I did bring this issue here 10 days ago. Was advised that I should make a further attempt to communicate. This was done and reverted without response.

Editor has decided to describe his edits as Reverat vanadalism. After being being blocked in 2021, editor was warned against falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, something that has fallen on deaf ears. Zoumestein (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

While not a violation of 3RR, it is still WP:edit warring, and you should therefore file a report at WP:EWNB,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 07:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It may require a block, to get Angryskies' attention. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, this is not one of the attention-getting cases, since Angryskies is editing their talkpage to blank it (and have indeed posted on it previously, e.g. to appeal a block). They know they have it - this is active refusal to communicate. In view of that, plus the edit warring, and also their continued aggressive referring to content disputes as "vandalism" after Bbb23's warning here, I have blocked for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC). PS, and I think you posted in the right place, Zoumestein, since there was more to unpack than the edit warring. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC).

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

Disruptive editing by a user

Can any administrator remove all contributions of this flag in info box of various articles by this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inedits. The flag doesn't hold any official status and be removed as such from those articles which are having the use of it in their info boxes.  Debjyoti Gorai  (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

List of pages if anyone's interested. Inedits is spamming retired templates in their userpage and talk page since this ANI section was opened. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Debjyoti Gorai: -The box at the top of the page says: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Did you do that? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph the editor's page didn't exist earlier, so I mistakenly skipped the step. Sorry for that and now I have rectified it.  Debjyoti Gorai  (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The page has existed since September, but the user keeps blanking it. Thanks for sorting out the notification now. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears User:Angeluser has reverted most of these edits. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:BaiulyQz is NOTHERE

BaiulyQz is engaged in racial POVPUSH with clear intent to obfuscate and fabricate content. Made massive changes to Turkic peoples with specific intent to push for the portrayal of Turkic peoples as West Eurasian (Caucasian) rather than East Eurasian (Mongoloid) through deletion, distortion, fabrication, and misrepresentation of material (WP:SYNTH). This can be seen in the history of their User:BaiulyQz/sandbox, where they copy pasted entire sections from this article that they wished to change: [86]. And then methodically pruned the content by removing pre-existing cited material and restructured or completely fabricated material in replacement: [87], [88], [89].

Here they synthed two statements on two separate subjects, Qirghiz/Altaians and Qipchaqs, separated by sources centuries apart, into one descriptive sentence using quoted terms, while simultaneously deleting directly quoted material to the contrary.

Here they completely fabricated the sentence Chinese histories describe the Turks (Tujue or Tüküe) as “mixed barbarians” having a noteworthy frequency of blonde to brown hair and blue or green eyes. and deleted an entire cited paragraph. The "mixed barbarians" was used to describe the Kök Türks while nowhere in the source is the second part on physical features mentioned while the previously quoted content gave the opposite statement.

Here they copy pasted content from Ashina_tribe#Genetics.

At Turkic peoples: [90] After being called out, BaiulyQz immediately went back to sandbox, offloaded more copy paste content from Ashina_tribe#Physical_appearance and proceeded to put them into this article again without comment on their previous behavior: [91], [92]. Here they deleted cited content again without any stated reason similar to their original major edit. Looking at User_talk:BaiulyQz, the way they write, familiarity with style, and focus on genetics right from the start, they do not seem like a new user to me. Qiushufang (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a very unfair and misleading accusation. You seem to actively harass me and follow your own agenda. Everything is sourced. Regarding one of your poits, the Tujue/Göktürks were described as "mixed barbarians" and compared to Wusun, which in turn were described as "blonde, blue eyed barbarians" in Lee and Kuang. The other accusations are misleading and explained here:. Furthermore all these terms YOU use (Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc.) are outdated and scientific racism. YOU include the whole section, as can be confirmed by looking at the edit history of the article. Please do not verbally attack me and accuse me of something while ignoring the talk page and removing citations. Furthermore, out of nowhere you appear and attack me to restore your ideal version. This is not nice, nor did you try to use the talk page. See my talk page section which you ignored but filed this biased accusation here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkic_peoples#Qiushufang). Here the accuser says he is not interested in the talk page discussion and accuses me again (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkic_peoples&diff=1123424498&oldid=1123420869). - BaiulyQz (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The text specifically states the Göktürk were not compared to the Wusun: However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories. (Lee & Kuang p. 202) The part you deleted here. In addition to your premeditated changes in your sandbox, there is no universe of possibility that you do not understand what you are attempting to do. Please do not feign ignorance. Qiushufang (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What? That is exactly the point! Now explain why you removed sourced content? Simply because it contradicts your biased worldview about Turkic peoples? I copied this from the talk page to prevent wrong understandings:

This was removed while being probably cited:

...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

The above is directly copied from Lee and Kuang!

Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

Here the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features, including blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes, but became more East Asian-looking over time, due to intermarriage. She also wrote that members of the Ashina tribe sought to marry Chinese nobles, "perhaps in the hope of finding an occasion to claim rulership over China, or because the high birth of the mother warranted seniority". Esin notes that the later depiction of an Ashina prince, the Bust of Kul Tigin, has an East Asian appearance.

User Qiushufang accuses me of removing content while he deliberately removed sourced content. Why? I solely removed the sentence part "whereas "no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories". This was taken out of context. Did anyone actually read the paper?

What game are you playing? Accusing me of what you did? I included more information to prevent biased and incomplete information. Everyone can confirm this by looking at the citations. Qiushufang removed sourced content:(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1123411477). - BaiulyQz (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

BaiulyQz: Regarding one of your poits, the Tujue/Göktürks were described as "mixed barbarians" and compared to Wusun

Qiushufang: The text specifically states the Göktürk were not compared to the Wusun

BaiulyQz: What? That is exactly the point! Now explain why you removed sourced content?

I hope it is clear why I did not choose to engage in talk discussion with them. Note that this user has not addressed their initial step by step deletions and distortion shown in their sandbox. I do not believe this person is a new user given their familiarity with wiki syntax, non-native English, yet mission driven editing style. Qiushufang (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of BaiulyQz's changes in edit:

Sandbox 1

Before

According to historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang, Chinese official histories do not depict Turkic peoples as belonging to a single uniform entity called "Turks". However "Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy" and that "like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in general depict the "Turks" as possessing East Asian physiognomy". According to "fragmentary information on the Xiongnu language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic," however historians have been unable to confirm whether or not they were Turkic. Sima Qian's description of their legendary origins suggest their physiognomy was "not too different from that of... Han (漢) Chinese population," but a subset of Xiongnu known as the Jie people were described having "deep-set eyes," "high nose bridges" and "heavy facial hair."

After

Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as possessing both West-Eurasian and East Asian physiognomy, as well as describing them as "mixed barbarians" with "blue/green eyes" and "blonde hair". According to "fragmentary information on the Xiongnu language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic," however historians have been unable to confirm whether or not they were Turkic. A subset of Xiongnu known as the Jie people were described as having "deep-set eyes," "high nose bridges" and "heavy facial hair."

No statement supporting this change exists in the source. Quoted passages depicting Turkic speaking peoples as East Eurasian phenotype were removed whereas individual descriptions assigned to specific Turkic peoples were synthed into a general statement on Turks supporting a West Eurasian phenotype.

Source

The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. DNA studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples. While it is true that insufficient amounts of ancient DNA samples have been studied, one may still infer from the given genetic data that the early and medieval Turkic peoples possessed dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome haplogroups with different representative haplogroups, some of which were of West Eurasian origin. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 228)

"Mixed barbarians" was a descriptor applied only to the ancestors of the Gokturks in Pingliang. "Blue/green eyes" applied only to the Kyrgyz and Wusun, who are not confirmed to be Turks, and such descriptions are specifically stated to be absent in description of the Gokturks. "Blonde hair" is not mentioned in the source.

The Suishu recounts that the Kök Türks are descended from ‘the mixed barbarians (za hu 雜胡) of Pingliang (平涼)’11 (Suishu 84.1863). Interestingly, the Zhoushu also relates that the Ashina clan was related to the Qirghiz (Qigu 契骨) (Zhoushu 50.908), who are described in the Xin Tangshu as possessing ‘red hair’ and ‘blue eyes’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6147). (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 201)

It should be noted that the seventh-century Tang historian Yan Shigu (顏師古), who added a commentary to the Hanshu (c. 80s AD), describes the Wusun (烏孫) as follows:
The Wusun have the weirdest appearance among all the Rong (戎) of the Western Region (西域). Today’s Hu (胡) people, being blue-eyed and redbearded, and having the appearance of macaques, were originally their progeny.
However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 202)

Sanbox 2

Before

According to the Old Book of Tang, Ashina Simo "was not given a high military post by the Ashina rulers because of his Sogdian (huren 胡人) physiognomy." The Tang historian Yan Shigu described the Hu people of his day as "blue-eyed and red bearded" descendants of the Wusun, whereas "no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories."

After

Chinese histories describe the Turks (Tujue or Tüküe) as “mixed barbarians” having a noteworthy frequency of blonde to brown hair and blue or green eyes. The Tang historian Yan Shigu described them as "blue-eyed and red bearded". According to Xue Zongzheng, the early Turks had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color.

Nothing in the source supports these changes. "Mixed barbarians" was not applied to a group other than the ancestors of the Gokturks at Pingliang and the Gokturks as a whole are not described as blue or green eyed (Kyrgyz and Wusun). Neither blonde or brown hair are mentioned in the source. Xue is not mentioned in the source and "deep eye sockets, prominent noses" were only applied to Jie of the Xiongnu, who are not confirmed to be Turks. Light eyes and hair color are not mentioned in the source. Again synth and fabrication in service of phenotype povpush.

Source

The Suishu recounts that the Kök Türks are descended from ‘the mixed barbarians (za hu 雜胡) of Pingliang (平涼)’11 (Suishu 84.1863). Interestingly, the Zhoushu also relates that the Ashina clan was related to the Qirghiz (Qigu 契骨) (Zhoushu 50.908), who are described in the Xin Tangshu as possessing ‘red hair’ and ‘blue eyes’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6147). However, as to their physiognomy, the Kök Türks differed from the Qirghiz. According to the Jiu Tangshu, an Ashina commander named Ashina Simo (阿史那思摩) was not given a high military post by the Ashina rulers because of his Sogdian (huren 胡人) physiognomy (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 201)

It should be noted that the seventh-century Tang historian Yan Shigu (顏師古), who added a commentary to the Hanshu (c. 80s AD), describes the Wusun (烏孫) as follows:
The Wusun have the weirdest appearance among all the Rong (戎) of the Western Region (西域). Today’s Hu (胡) people, being blue-eyed and redbearded, and having the appearance of macaques, were originally their progeny.
However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 202)

However, the Jie (羯), ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu (匈奴別部)’, who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 ad), appear to have possessed West Eurasian physiognomy, that is, ‘deep-set eyes’, ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy facial hair’. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 199)

Deleted passages:

Medieval Arab and Persian descriptions of Turks state that they looked strange from their perspective and were extremely physically different from Arabs. Turks were described as "broad faced people with small eyes" and with pink skin, as being "short, with small eyes, nostrils, and mouths" (Sharaf al-Zaman al-Marwazi), as being "full-faced with small eyes" (Al-Tabari), as possessing "a large head (sar-i buzurg), a broad face (rūy-i pahn), narrow eyes (chashmhā-i tang), and a flat nose (bīnī-i pakhch), and unpleasing lips and teeth (lab va dandān na nīkū)" (Keikavus). Medieval Muslim writers noted that Tibetans and Turks resembled each other, and that they often were not able to tell the difference between Turks and Tibetans. On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly Mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portrait have definite old Türk features (long hair, absence of headdress of the governor, a tricorn headdress of the governess)". In the Ghaznavids' residential palace of Lashkari Bazar, there survives a partially conserved portrait depicting a turbaned and haloed adolescent figure with full cheeks, slanted eyes, and a small, sinuous mouth. The Armenian historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi describes the Turks of the Western Turkic Khaganate as "broad-faced, without eyelashes, and with long flowing hair like women".

According to Gardizi, the Kyrgyz were mixed with "Saqlabs" (Slavs), which explains the red hair and white skin among the Kyrgyz.

Sandbox 3

Copypaste from Ashina_tribe#Genetics

Ashina tribe version:

The reasoning for this assumption is that the Ashina tribe was said to be closely related to the Yenisei Kirghiz people, and also to the Iranian Saka. The modern-day descendants of the Yenisei Kirghiz, the Kyrgyz people, have one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a-Z93.

Copypaste:

The royal Ashina tribe was said to be closely related to the Yenisei Kirghiz people. The modern-day descendants of the Yenisei Kirghiz, the Kyrgyz people, have one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a-Z93.

The user seems to have gone back and forth on deciding which parts of the source to keep once they realized it did not support their content: [93], [94], [95], ultimately settling on their extremely synthed and misrepresented povpush version. After my rv, they copy pasted content from Ashina_tribe#Physical_appearance to their sandbox and used it to continue povpush without mentioning the previous problems: [96], [97], stealth deletion.

There are miscellaneous problems with their editing that could be attributed to WP:COMPETENCE at first: quotations that do not match the source and run on sentences. But taking into account the heavy editorializing and how every change is made with one purpose in mind, their avoidance of addressing these issues before returning with new content copy pasted from another article while stealth deleting previous content, it is not believable that this user is acting in good faith. The problems listed here are eerily similar to a repeat at the article's talk months ago: [98]. Pinging those who have been involved with this user: @Joshua Jonathan: @LouisAragon: @Aoidh: Those pinged by them: @Golden: @Hunan201p: Those who have dealt with similar cases in the past: @Beshogur: @Steve Quinn: Qiushufang (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep making up accusations which are not true, I used my talk page to copy the previous wordings, read the references and than edit accordingly to make the paragraphs more balanced. I did not silently remove paragraphs or content or tried to change meaning, but correct blatantly misquoted sentences and biased one sided views, which you defend. I also removed paragraphs already mentioned elsewhere for balance, the whole section is a mess and must be revised by unbiased editors. Race theories should be very carefully habded and not in this biased and aggressive manner. Your aggressive stance is further hardening any mutual understanding. The removed paragraph about Oghuz Turks was explained because it is found in identical amount at the main article, while this section, in my opinion, should chronologically deal with the early Turkic peoples and not randomly selected paragraphs highlighting their "Mongoloidness". This all reads like a 19th century textbook written by the lectures of the Nationalsocialist German workers party! You exaggerated the information talking about Mongoloid looking people, while let out information about Kipchaks, Kyrgyz, Karluk, Mamluk, etc. You hold the information about the Ashina tribe short, and completely remove citations (from the same study you used) which disagree with your worldview about Turkic peoples. You also ignored my talk page discussion where I asked to explain and find a solution, instead you further harassed me and made this escalation. I did neither edit war nor made unconstructive edits. This is a solely conflict of interest on your side. Looking at the edit history of Turkic peoples talk page, you already had fights with other users and insulted one pinged editor (Hunan201p) as well:

"Hunan has already been banned and gotten into multiple incidents on pushing fringe racial theories and edit warring. Disappointing to see him here again. Qiushufang (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)".

This is not acceptable. You can't insult disagreeing users. You follow the same agenda as a blocked user Turukkean as highlighted by Hunan201p:

"They clearly say early Turks were heterogenous, just as Findley did, so why change their conclusion just because they don't explicity state that the Xiongnu were Turkic, even though the Wikipedia article has an entire section for the Xiongnu, who are universally regarded as being linked to Turks? It just smacks of the very anti-West Eurasian bias that WorldCreaterFighter (Turukkaean) is known for pushing in Turkic related articles. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)".

Furthermore you deleted and still did not explain why you removed these inline citations from the section!

...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

The above is directly copied from Lee and Kuang! You accuse me of removing something, while it's actually YOU who removed citations without explanation! 'I ask you to explain the removal of sourced content below!'

You also said I did change and manipulate content, while in fact I replaced it with more informative wording about the same source, copied from Ashina tribe for neutrality reasons. As said before, you exaggerated information about Mongoloid phenotypes, even including fringe descriptions of statues and coins about Oghuz Turks which claim the coins to show "strong Mongoloid" features... is this the Coon and co club of outdated race theories? Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe with the inline citation! So you can't not accuse me of manipulating because it is the exact wording of the authors:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

As little hint, this for example was completely ignored by you:

"Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage".

Why? Why you exaggerate fringe concepts linked to Mongoloids while ignoring the rest of the information in the papers? This is cherry picking and biased editing!

Another evidence for your biased edit styles is the removal of the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features, including blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes, but became more East Asian-looking over time, due to intermarriage. She also wrote that members of the Ashina tribe sought to marry Chinese nobles, "perhaps in the hope of finding an occasion to claim rulership over China, or because the high birth of the mother warranted seniority". Esin notes that the later depiction of an Ashina prince, the Bust of Kul Tigin, has an East Asian appearance.

You removed it without explaining, yet you think it is okay to include something like this 19th century propaganda:

On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly Mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portrait have definite old Türk features (long hair, absence of headdress of the governor, a tricorn headdress of the governess)". In the Ghaznavids' residential palace of Lashkari Bazar, there survives a partially conserved portrait depicting a turbaned and haloed adolescent figure with full cheeks, slanted eyes, and a small, sinuous mouth. The Armenian historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi describes the Turks of the Western Turkic Khaganate as "broad-faced, without eyelashes, and with long flowing hair like women".

Why these information must be in the article and the opposing or diversity supporting paragraphs get removed? This is biased and agenda motivated. Look in the mirror first before accusing other people and putting bad words into their mouth. I sincerely ask again to stop accusing me and harassing me.

The whole section was included by you and later edited by another blocked user Whuu, he included more Mongoloid supportive paragraphs, you did not care. Now when I try to make it more neutral mentioning both sides and both descriptions, because we must mention all descriptions of Turkic peoples, not only the ones we personally like more, you suddenly escalate and try to erase any opposing information to your worldview about Turkic peoples. User Hunan201p so mentioned that YOU did in fact removed sourced content without explanation, see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=1123378436&oldid=1123375939. He explained that my wordings were more neutral and balanced than yours and that you deleted a paragraph and a citation without explanation, as you would call it "silent deletion"! (Baiulyqz's summary of the sources is a fairer and more balanced take. Further, previous editor has seemingly taken the liberty of deliberately deleting a source (Jeong et al, 2020) that suggests a much bigger West Eurasian (Iranian) genetic link to the historical Turks, which the adticle needed for WP:BALANCE). So please look at yourself first before insulting others!-BaiulyQz (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep making up accusations which are not true, I used my talk page to copy the previous wordings, read the references and than edit accordingly to make the paragraphs more balanced.

I did not silently remove paragraphs or content or tried to change meaning, but correct blatantly misquoted sentences and biased one sided views, which you defend.

[99] [100] [101]

I also removed paragraphs already mentioned elsewhere for balance, the whole section is a mess and must be revised by unbiased editors.

The deleted passage mentioned above does not exist in any other part of Wikipedia.

Race theories should be very carefully habded and not in this biased and aggressive manner. Your aggressive stance is further hardening any mutual understanding. The removed paragraph about Oghuz Turks was explained because it is found in identical amount at the main article, while this section, in my opinion, should chronologically deal with the early Turkic peoples and not randomly selected paragraphs highlighting their "Mongoloidness". This all reads like a 19th century textbook written by the lectures of the Nationalsocialist German workers party!

Selective outrage. The Xue source brought up so often also uses the word Mongoloid.

This all reads like a 19th century textbook written by the lectures of the Nationalsocialist German workers party! You exaggerated the information talking about Mongoloid looking people, while let out information about Kipchaks, Kyrgyz, Karluk, Mamluk, etc.

Provide diffs where I "exaggerated the information talking about Mongoloid looking people, let out information about Kipchaks, Kyrgyz, Karluk, Mamluk, etc."

Looking at the edit history of Turkic peoples talk page, you already had fights with other users and insulted one pinged editor (Hunan201p) as well:

"Hunan has already been banned and gotten into multiple incidents on pushing fringe racial theories and edit warring. Disappointing to see him here again. Qiushufang (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)".

Hunan was banned for three months and he was involved in edit warring and pushing fringe racial theories: [102]. It was disappointing to see him again arguing over the same subject area.

This is not acceptable. You can't insult disagreeing users. You follow the same agenda as a blocked user Turukkean as highlighted by Hunan201p:
"They clearly say early Turks were heterogenous, just as Findley did, so why change their conclusion just because they don't explicity state that the Xiongnu were Turkic, even though the Wikipedia article has an entire section for the Xiongnu, who are universally regarded as being linked to Turks? It just smacks of the very anti-West Eurasian bias that WorldCreaterFighter (Turukkaean) is known for pushing in Turkic related articles. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)".

I do not know who Turukkean is. As for the heterogenous part, I added that in: [103] [104]. The Xiongnu being linked to Turkic peoples could mean many things. Chinese are linked to Koreans who are linked to Japanese. That does not mean they are the same people or worth mentioning. The Xiongnu article has multiple sections on origin theories and their relationship with several peoples.

You hold the information about the Ashina tribe short, and completely remove citations (from the same study you used) which disagree with your worldview about Turkic peoples.

You also said I did change and manipulate content, while in fact I replaced it with more informative wording about the same source, copied from Ashina tribe for neutrality reasons. As said before, you exaggerated information about Mongoloid phenotypes, even including fringe descriptions of statues and coins about Oghuz Turks which claim the coins to show "strong Mongoloid" features... is this the Coon and co club of outdated race theories? Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe with the inline citation! So you can't not accuse me of manipulating because it is the exact wording of the authors:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

The same source is cited twice. It is not the "exact wording." Nowhere in the source does it mention Xue Zongzheng is a scientist and nothing confirming that can be found online. None of the physical descriptors are mentioned in the cited pages. On p. 188 "deep eye sockets" are mentioned but only applied to non-Turks such as the Yuezhi and Shiwei. Noses are mentioned on p. 191 but not in relation to Turks. Only Qağan Muhan's eyes were described as "like colored glazes" and then "this kind of racial descriptions suspended in the biographical or ethnographic accounts of the Turkic rulers in Chinese sources." (p. 190) Hair color is mentioned on p. 191 in an argument claiming the descriptor "yellow" is equivalent to blond hair, but the descriptor is never applied to the Ashina or the Gokturks, only the Shiwei and Yugur or Uyghurs.

As little hint, this for example was completely ignored by you: "Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage". Why? Why you exaggerate fringe concepts linked to Mongoloids while ignoring the rest of the information in the papers? This is cherry picking and biased editing!

I did not ignore that quotation because it was not featured in the prose. The final version of your additions did not incorporate it into the prose nor was it part of a quotation in the citation. Nor was it part of the prose in your later additions in which you deleted half the sentence on the Wusun, making it completely irrelevant to the article as the Wusun are not confirmed to be Turkic. Xue's views were already part of the prose prior to your additions, which you could have chosen to expand on rather than putting them under Lee & Kuang, which does not mention Xue at all. Later you copy pasted content from Ashina tribe and cited the same source twice without checking the validity of the material, resulting in the above WP:OR. "Fringe concepts linked to Mongoloids" does not seem like something someone concerned about the usage of the term "Mongoloid" would say. Could you provide any sources that the sources you removed are fringe?

Another evidence for your biased edit styles is the removal of the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

You removed it without explaining, yet you think it is okay to include something like this 19th century propaganda:

It was a blanket rv given that you copy pasted content, which requires attribution as you have been told, and you did not address the previous problems of WP:SYNTH, distortion, and completely fabricated content above. None of the sources provided in that passage are dated to the 19th century.

The whole section was included by you and later edited by another blocked user Whuu, he included more Mongoloid supportive paragraphs, you did not care.

Why would I care? Does it infringe on Wikipedia policies? Note the repeated focus on WP:SYNTH, distortion, or misreprenting of sources.

e explained that my wordings were more neutral and balanced than yours and that you deleted a paragraph and a citation without explanation, as you would call it "silent deletion"! (Baiulyqz's summary of the sources is a fairer and more balanced take. Further, previous editor has seemingly taken the liberty of deliberately deleting a source (Jeong et al, 2020) that suggests a much bigger West Eurasian (Iranian) genetic link to the historical Turks, which the adticle needed for WP:BALANCE). So please look at yourself first before insulting others!

You left out the first part of the edit summary. Qiushufang (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not true. You present wrong accusations and ignore my previous explanation, while making weak excuses to remove sourced content to defend your "Mongoloid supremacy" agenda here. The most little evidence for "Mongoloid" phenotypes are mentioned and "cited", including coins, while inline citations get removed for dubious reasons. Than you claim the citation I presented was not part of my edit! A bold lie. Anyone can confirm by seeing the changes. If you are not able to do here the change which clearly included the relevant inline citations which support my wording:

"...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

You removed it without any reason, no comment nothing, other than your accusations. Next one, the citation which you just claimed to not exist in my edit, better to look again:

"Wang, Penglin (2018). Linguistic Mysteries of Ethnonyms in Inner Asia. Lanham: Lexington. pp. 189–190. ISBN 1498535283. "According to Xue Zongzheng (1992:80), the emergence of less-Caucasoid features in the Turkic ruling class was probably due to the intermarriage with the Chinese imperial families from generation to generation. Consequently, up to the Qagan's eighth generation descendant, Ashina Simo, his racial features remained unchanged to the extent in which he was described as looking like a Hu (Sogdian) person, not akin to Turkic, and suspected to be not of Ashina genealogical strain, and henceforth was unfortunately not trusted for military commandership (JTS 194.5163). Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage, then became presented as a sign of impure blood as a result of the qualitative change occurred in the hybrid physical features combining both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical traits."

You ignored this citation. Why? Let's continue: You removed the paragraph and citations of Emel Esin, stil give no valid reason and also did not care to clarify. You deleted it because it does not serve your agenda. My last edit removed only one sentence part, which would have been easy to restore by you when this was the only reason, but you decided to completely remove information and citations, while accusing me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1123411477&oldid=1123410407.

You claim that it's Hunan who is biased, yet you defend content created by sock accounts blocked for exactly the agenda you are now nurturing, see Hunan already noted that you follow the same pattern as previously blocked sock accounts and also had disputes with you. Your strange behavior to make this report instead of discussing it at the talk page section I made is further strange! I did not even edited the article after your accusations and warning at my talk page, instead I tried to use the talk to get concensus, but you choose to escalate.

The section you created is obviously biased, the removal of more balanced content by you is even more biased. You basically included information and pieces of evidence highlighting the "Mongoloid" features of certain Turkic peoples, while ignored the information about other Turkic peoples, or the fact that Muslim writers used the term Türk to refer also to other Central Asian Steppe groups they encountered (Mongols, Tang Chinese, etc.)! There is no valid explanation for you the remove the above cited data and also explained at the talk page, which you ignored and commented that you are not interested in discussions. This is NOTHERE!BaiulyQz (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

References

I'm pretty sure no one has any idea what this thread is about

^ EEng 05:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

To keep it short, I am saying User:BaiulyQz engaged in deliberate WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to POVPUSH. The beginning of their editing history also suggests this is not their first account. Qiushufang (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. You simply want to protect your section and view about this, therefore you accuse disagreeing users, not only me as we have seen. You also deliberately ignore the inline citations and did not try yourself to improve the section. In the meantime you continue your obsession with Turkic physical appearance, not surprisingly it was you who created the section and you together with a blocked user edited it. It should be no surprise that it needs to look at. As anyone can see above, my edits did not include misleading content. You still accuse me although I explained what I did. In short: I removed a paragraph which is identically found in the article Oghuz Turks, included more inline citations from the given references, which give some more balanced view on this (more heterogeneity; Muslim writers also referred to non-Turkic speakers; more information about the Ashina, shortening extensive exaggerations about "Mongoloid" looks about coins, descriptions, statues, which are all very subjective. I repeat I have created a talk page, but the accuser is not interested in it.BaiulyQz (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: It seems like more content dispute, rather than a behavioral one. The two didn't even talk for long at Talk:Turkic peoples page. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please look at their sandbox activity in preparation for their content additions at Turkic peoples: [105] [106] [107] [108]. If I had believed this was a content dispute problem I would have engaged in talk discussion as I had done previously in that article's talk with another user: [109]. This user methodically introduced WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in their sandbox prior to their additions as I outline above in blockquotes. They ignored the issues I raised in the edit summaries and continued to edit introducing stealth deletions before going to talk. Behavior such as sandbox use, step by step changes, and avoidance lead me to believe this was more behavioral rather than a content dispute. Qiushufang (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: The BaiulyQz latest edits at Turkic peoples might have been WP:TENDENTIOUS but thankfully anyone can revert them and take discussion to an appropriate talk page. I'm not convinced that they were WP:PUSHing a point in a series of edits and in a manner that warrants Admins' attention.
…Behavior such as sandbox use, step by step changes, and avoidance… Nothing is criminal in preparing their edits changes in the sandbox. If the contributed edits don't match the source, use {{failed verification}} template or revert & discuss by pointing out at the cited source's mismatches on the article talk page. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I should have outlined the instances of OR and SYNTH in talk first. This was probably premature but I maintain that there are too many behavioral ticks for me to consider BaiulyQz a good faith actor. The reason why I mentioned the sandbox usage was due to assuming some aspect of WP:COMPETENCE at first. But upon further inspection of their edits, such as restoring changed content before reverting back to their version ([110] [111] [112]) followed by continued editing without any reference to my reverts or issues brought up, it became apparent they were aware of their actions. That's probably not enough for an admin to act. Qiushufang (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I do have a limited idea, and really, the length of this thread is in no way proportionate to the significance of the issue. While BaiulyQz might have been slightly more WP:TENDENTIOUS than Qiushufang, this is just a content dispute at its core. As a side note, both editors could use a read of guidelines: I would recommend WP:PLAGFORM, WP:CWW, and, without question, WP:DTS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes by Rayane 77 (here we go again)

Rayane 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first ANI was archived after six days with no reaction from any admin, but meanwhile this editor has once again edited in the same manner as described below ([113]), so I bring this matter back here once more. What I write below is exactly the same as I did two weeks ago (see [114]), and it is still valid as of now.

Despite the two warnings I have issued, this editor has kept changing or adding content, and never provides any sources to back up their changes. Examples: [115], [116], [117], [118], etc. All of their edits, basically. Even though this is the English-language Wikipedia, sometimes they edit in French for some reason: [119]. Since they have never communicated with other editors, nor tried to change their behaviour, I think it's time to block them in order to prevent more disruption, and maybe get them to finally communicate. BilletsMauves^€500 10:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a final warning of my own. If anyone believes that additional action is warranted at this time don't let my warning deter you. Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive

I'm currently in a heated dispute at Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting over what pronouns to refer to the shooter with and whether to include their birth name in the article. Throughout this discussion, User:Locke Cole has accused me of being disruptive, [120][121] "pushing an agenda" after I asked them to bring up their concerns here rather than the talk page, [122] [123] and of violating WP:Competence is required. [124] In the past, User:Locke Cole has been warned by several editors on their talk page about concerns with civility [125] [126] [127], has been warned at WP:AN3 for civility by an admin acting officially, [128], blocked for NPA, [129] and was brought here a few months ago over civility concerns. [130]
Now, I argued in some of these threads for much longer than I should have, and I do feel passionately about my own position (I will likely take a break from that article for a while), so I'm not the best judge of my own behaviour. I respect Locke Cole's long history of contributing to the project, but I believe these comments at that discussion crossed the line. They should not be allowed to use other editors of being incompetent or disruptive on article talk pages. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've notified Locke Cole [131] about this discussion and SPECIFICO [132] as SPECIFICO is involved in two of the diffs (the warnings) that I've posted here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that after asking if I wanted to report them or if I wanted them to report me (which was apparently their response to being called out for being disruptive), they apparently decided to take it upon themselves. Personally, I was going to head to WP:AN/AE, but we can start here I suppose. Chess apparently takes issue with having people disagree with them. Instead of engaging in anything resembling productive discussion, they routinely misrepresent (or misunderstand) MOS:GENDERID and, without citing any significant sources, push the idea that their way is the only way to deal with gender at Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Colin had previously warned Chess that the types of comments Chess makes regarding gender issues are an easy way to earn a topic ban (I've notified Colin of this discussion). And I agree. See here, where Chess says it's misgendering someone against the consensus of reliable sources is definitely not a good look even though the discussion is about including the perpetrators previous name that was changed many years prior to the mass shooting, a shooting that occurred prior to the primary source (the perpetrator's lawyer) claiming they are non-binary. One does not simply get to engage in mass murder, then scream "I'm non-binary" to somehow make it so reports on them have to hide their prior history of who they were. Most people at the talk page seem to get that, but Chess keeps pushing a strict reading of a guideline to try and overcome policy requirements. Accusing another editor of "misgendering" subjects of our articles is a bold claim given the reliable sources on this matter. Chess also stated [a]ll mass shooting articles shouldn't assume suspect gender per WP:BLPCRIME, in reply to a discussion they weren't previously involved in, making a claim that is demonstrably false (that BLPCRIME speaks about gender identity; it doesn't).

Chess is, at best, engaging in a severe WP:IDHT on the talk page, or at worst, displaying a clear lack of competency about the subject they seem to be heavily invested in. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in anything resembling productive discussion, they routinely misrepresent (or misunderstand) MOS:GENDERID and, without citing any significant sources, push the idea that their way is the only way to deal with gender at Colorado Springs nightclub shooting. I disagree with you on the interpretation of that policy, and others have agreed with me. That's how a discussion works and we're having an RfC on it, the result of which I'm planning on respecting. I cited WP:DEADNAME, which says that prior names of non-binary individuals should not be included in an article unless those are names that the individual is notable under. I believe an expansive reading of that policy is a good thing and that we should err on the side of caution and apply the policy to all names that could potentially be deadnames. I can see why you might disagree with me, but I don't see how that's being disruptive. Even if I'm wrong, that still doesn't give you the right to insult me.

In response to Colin had previously warned Chess that the types of comments Chess makes regarding gender issues are an easy way to earn a topic ban (I've notified Colin of this discussion)., I struck the comment accusing Colin of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS a few days ago. [133] I've also apologized for that comment to Colin, again a few days ago (before this ANI thread or any new threats of action against me). [134] While that was (and still is) a heated RfC on WP:RSN, it was inappropriate for me to link the policy on WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and I again apologize for that.

In response to your claim that One does not simply get to engage in mass murder, then scream "I'm non-binary" to somehow make it so reports on them have to hide their prior history of who they were. Most people at the talk page seem to get that, but Chess keeps pushing a strict reading of a guideline to try and overcome policy requirements. Accusing another editor of "misgendering" subjects of our articles is a bold claim given the reliable sources on this matter. That's fundamentally a content dispute. Yes, I think you're wrong. I've provided several sources that describe the suspect as non-binary and use they/them pronouns. [135] I don't think it's a good look for Wikipedia to use he/him when reliable sources use they/them, and when the suspect identifies with they/them. Me disagreeing with you does not earn me a topic ban.

In terms of "all mass shooting articles shouldn't assume suspect gender per WP:BLPCRIME", I had a longer comment that was cut off. I apologize for that, as what I said was not very clear. That was my mistake--I should be ensuring that my comments are clear from the start and review my comments after I make them. That is why I clarified it in a follow-up [136] where I said The point I'm making is that in any cases where the shooter is arrested, we should not assume the shooter's gender because it's almost always assuming that the shooter's gender matches the suspect. Gender-neutral terms should be used in all of these cases. I've explained that I've previously made this type of edit before on other pages in less controversial circumstances, where I removed the pronoun "he" from Stoneman Douglas High School shooting because it implied Cruz was the shooter before he was actually convicted. [137] Your response was to accuse me of pushing an agenda. [138]

Your argument boils down to the claim that I'm disruptive for disagreeing with you in an RfC, which is an acceptable place for disagreeing with other editors. And yes, my response to being "called out" on an article talk page is to ask if you want to report me to WP:ANI. The article talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss editor conduct. If there's one person who apparently takes issue with having people disagree with them, it would be you, who thinks that I should be topic-banned from the gender area because I'm on the wrong side in a relatively minor WP:content dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two separate issues here that should not be conflated. The first is that the suspect's attorney has stated that the suspect identifies as non-binary. Although the circumstances invite skepticism, it seems relatively easy to use the singular they or their current surname, as long as that remains the assertion of the suspect's legal team. The second issue of whether to mention the suspect's birth name before their legal name change six years ago is a different matter. Is the old name truly a dead name? I do not think so. Both names have male connotations. There is no evidence whatsoever that that name change had anything to do with a nonbinary gender identity. The court documents say that the motivation for the name change was separation from his biological father who has a criminal record and a "scandalous" reputation. There is no evidence of any non-binary self-identification until after the mass shooting. I do not think that a brief mention by an attorney for an accused murder suspect suddenly transforms a name change from six years ago into a deadname. Reliable sources are discussing the suspect's parents and grandparents while trying to understand the possible motivations of the suspect. We should not use a contrived Wikilawyering interpretation of DEADNAME to interfere with the normal development of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I respect that which is why we're having an RfC to resolve the second issue. Locke Cole could have said all of that without calling me incompetent, disruptive, and POV-pushing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: I did politely explain it to you here. It wasn't until you began accusing editors opposed to your view of doxxing and deadnaming people (that's doxxing. I don't understand why editors here are so insistent on deadnaming someone and setting up this precedent that transgender people need to PROVE their name change was related to gender dysphoria), going against trans individuals (You don't discuss changes when someone is non-binary. It's a simple solution that prevents doxxing and dead naming) and that that it wasn't up for debate (this is not something that is up for debate) that I started taking things personally. I take trans issues seriously, and is why I created {{they}}, {{their}} and {{theirs}} back in 2009. I find your continued claims of editors opposed to your point of view deeply offensive, insulting and frankly unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We should not use a contrived Wikilawyering interpretation of DEADNAME to interfere with the normal development of the article. -- Okay, but that's a normal content dispute. MOS:GENDERID says if a non-binary person wasn't notable under a former name, don't include it, and that we should refer to people by "the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification". The suspect wasn't notable under a former name, and they most recently expressed that they have a non-binary gender identity. So a strict reading of MOS:GENDERID would agree with Chess, but Locke Cole would argue it violates its spirit, because Locke Cole believes the suspect is lying about their gender identity.

That would be fine as a normal content dispute to have. But Chess isn't an evil bogeyman for preferring to follow the letter of MOS:GENDERID rather than what Locke Cole argues is its spirit; I don't think it's appropriate to say it is disruptive for him to do so, or that he is incompetent for doing so, or that he is pushing an agenda for doing so. I think it's uncivil for Locke Cole to make all these accusations because someone falls on the other side of what appears to be a reasonable content dispute, particularly given Chess is certainly not the only one that fell on that side of the dispute in the ensuing RfC. Endwise (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, I neither said nor hinted that anyone was an "evil bogeyman" but rather tried to interpret the relevant policies and guidelines in these unusual circumstances. The evidence for non-binary identification is brand new and exceptionally thin. The name change is six years old. In my view, this is not an open-and-shut case devoid of nuance, and trying to present it that way is not useful. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean you. I was referring to what came after that semicolon in my comment (Cole's accusations). I agree with your comments on the content issue (the evidence for the suspect's identification is exceptionally thin, and that it's not an open-and-shut case). Endwise (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: I don't think it's appropriate to say it is disruptive for him to do so, or that he is incompetent for doing so, or that he is pushing an agenda for doing so It's all those things when Chess is accusing other editors of deadnaming someone, of engaging in doxxing, and generally trying to make it out like we're bad people for even thinking of following our sources and mentioning their original name from 2016. because Locke Cole believes the suspect is lying about their gender identity I do believe that, but that's not why. I say it violates the spirit because our sources also seem to think the post-incident claims of being non-binary are disingenuous and widely report the 2016 name in coverage of the incident. But this is all content-dispute cruft: please do not lose sight of the fact that Chess has repeatedly told editors that we're deadnaming the perpetrator and doxxing them by even discussing sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My recommendation is that all parties involved with this dispute should refrain from any personalization or dogmatism. Focus on what is best for our readers, taking into account a nuanced interpretation of policy in a unique circumstance. Accusations like "deadnaming" and particularly "doxxing" are not useful. Many news outlets worldwide are dissecting this person's past. It is not as if a rogue Wikipedia editor is interviewing people near the crime scene and reporting on what some random person said into the editor's microphone. The coverage in reliable sources is there. Of course, it needs to be written and summarized conservatively. But not with whitewashing brushes just because the person may (or may not) be nonbinary. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Qara Jasaq (talk · contribs) personal attacks

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

---

After being blocked due to edit warring, he came back edit warring at Taspar Qaghan article. Here I explained that the source is actually incorrect, he still uses a citation from a facebook page. When I reverted him, [139] he calls me You biased ignorant stop disrupting other peoples edits. You are not one only one educated person. If you do not other languages stop deleting their edits. You are clearly Iranian propagandist or Turkish islamist sectant, neither you are cancer to world. Beshogur (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Block Qara Jasaq for personal attack. Admin(s) can determine length of block.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

After being blocked (for a second time) for edit-warring in August, they waited three months and did exactly the same thing again. Add in the unpleasant personal attack, and I think you can safely say they are NOTHERE. Indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 27 November 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.

GalantFan POV pushing and retaliatory reverts

On November 7th, I made modifications to recent edits on Battle of the Alamo and Texas Declaration of Independence by this user because there were POV issues and issues with the content being undue for the lede. The editors recent edits are mainly focused on increasing the mention of slavery regarding Texas independence. Yesterday, they proceeded to revert my edits on multiple pages including ones that were completely irrelevant to Texas independence. They reverted some of my edits on Mexican–American War, James K. Polk, where they have already been reverted twice for POV edits, Michael Hayden (general), and the Second Battle of Fallujah, where they restored content from a non-RS. Their edits on the last two pages are clearly retaliatory as those pages are completely unrelated. There are clearly POV issues with their recent reverting of my edits, some seemingly for the sake of it which comes across like WP:Hounding. GreenCows (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Look in the mirror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GreenCows

You have a persistent history of altering the POV of articles to make USA look better. Then in your China alterations for example, you change the wording to make them look worse.

You are deleting verified facts even when the references are attached just because YOU have a problem with the POV.GalantFan (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggested you open a talk page discussion on Mexican–American War. You did only after reverting me again and instead of discussing content issues about the actual article, you immediately attacked my general editing. All my edits follow Wikipedia's rules.GreenCows (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They have reverted me again with an uncivil edit summary. GreenCows (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The user was reverted by CaptainEek on the Mexican-American War page and told to seek consensus but they have continued to edit war and make changes without gaining consensus and ignored a suggestion by CaptainEek to self revert. GreenCows (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore CaptainEek, I asked him to provide any references showing the previous text was more accurate than what I wrote.GalantFan (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Now the user has got a final warning and I will notify admins on their talk page if this user does this again. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

SpyridisioAnnis, I suspect this user may have now engaged in sockpuppetry to revert my contributions again on two pages unrelated to the Mexican-American War. An IP 2607:9880:2D28:A8:6876:D980:8170:6EA2 reverted my edits on Iraq War and Chile–United States relations in quick succession. The edits were done at a similar time to when GalantFan has often previously edited and the edit summaries share similarities with only lower case text and use of the word restore. However, the biggest indicator is that the IP made only two edits, which were both reverts to my previous edits on unrelated pages in a similar manner as GalantFan originally did. GreenCows (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for not mentioning earlier on this thread but I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GalantFan. GreenCows (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Admins, block the user as fast as you can before they destroy Wikipedia! SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SpyridisioAnnis: I think that is a bit of an exaggerated claim. Nobody is destroying Wikipedia here. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry, that should be investigated. But GalantFan has not made any edits for more than 48 hours, and I don't see why you saw the need to give them three escalating warnings (levels 2, 3, and 4) yesterday, since they haven't edited since more than 24 hours before the level 2 warning – which was unspecified, as was your level 3 warning. --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SpyridisioAnnis: reposting ping as I didn't sign the previous --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I hate to invoke the dreaded WP:VEXBYSTERANG but after having dealt with this user for a bit at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and here, I think there needs to be a discussion regarding WP:CIR and an indef for User:SpyridisioAnnis. They're currently on a 3-day ban for WP:3RR and the more I look through their contributions, the more I find nonsensical arguments and a failure to understand policy. In leu of citing specific examples, this user's contributions are a veritable minefield and speak for themselves. Their unblock requests here demonstrate everything you could do wrong with WP:GAB. There was a prior [140] concern about WP:CIR at ANI. I can see Edit war concerns have already been addressed to some extent by Bonadea but I fear we are just kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with what is becoming a protracted issue. Etrius ( Us) 15:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree regarding SpyridisioAnnis. This user has been popping up in my watchlist and multiple areas the last couple of days and right now they're causing a lot of wasted time. Definitely at this point failing WP:CIR. But lets see what happens after their block. I'm guessing there are now a lot of people watching their edits so I think if they continue their current pattern of what I'd call low level disruption, it'll be handled. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Alright, I can agree to that much. That being said, I hope @SpyridisioAnnis is aware that their current behavior is not appropriate and will result in an WP:INDEF should it continue. I personally believe there may be some English comprehension issues since it appears they read a number of things in a plausibly correct way that would be consistent with someone who has a decent but not perfect grasp of the language. This may be why it has been difficult to get points across.

Perhaps they could better serve the Greek Wiki since I can see they claim to be fluent in that language. Etrius ( Us) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on their recent talk-page comments, there's a persistent English competency problem. EEng 05:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No, for the record, that was not me. I track all my contributions.GalantFan (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Weird IP edits

98.149.220.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is going round changing the version of English used on various articles, using completely incomprehensible edit summaries, and randomly moving templates on pages, flooding watchlists.

They've been blocked twice before for this behaviour:

• 18:16, 16 July 2022 Blablubbs talk contribs blocked 98.149.220.34 talk with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (WP:NOTHERE behaviour, incomprehensible edit summaries, uncollaborative attitude, repeated misuse of own talk page; issues continue after previous block) Tag: Twinkle
• 17:57, 26 April 2022 EvergreenFir talk contribs blocked 98.149.220.34 talk with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing, NOTHERE) Tag: Twinkle

and attempts to communicate with them on their talk page just lead to blanking with more weird edit summaries. Can someone try to tap them with a cluestick? — Trey Maturin has spoken 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• See what I mean? — Trey Maturin has spoken 14:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 3 hours due to their attempts to remove this post. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

i merely reverted warned/banned tags vandal @getsnoopy who changed mdy to dmy tags, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macaron&diff=prev&oldid=931508324 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getsnoopy/Archive_1#ENGVAR_warning which @Trey Maturin objected to.

I reverted his talk page edits as I thought the macaron vandal issue was OVER. I have since apologized/retracted any controversial edits he finds objectionable, and am discussing on talk page with with Trey as he wishes me to. Bold text

It was a mistaken case of me reverting an already banned vandal (@getsnoopy , that's all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getsnoopy/Archive_1#ENGVAR_warning

Thanks for understanding/for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.220.34 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, what? Am I having a stroke? — Trey Maturin has spoken 15:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  The IP appears to be saying that because someone else changed it two years ago, they should now be able to mass change it back. Honestly we should just block anyone mucking with ENGVAR templates. The two articles I've looked at, Milkyway and Macaron, have both been switched over time. Macaron started in American English, and now isn't, while Milkyway has gone the opposite way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  If that is the case then we should probably start a discussion at the article’s talk pages whether we should use American English or not. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Diamond3245

• Diamond3245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Diamond3245 Diamond3245 has been disruptive editing over many WWE articles Mainly Hell in a Cell (2019), Roadblock: End of the Line, Hell in a Cell (2016), WWE Clash at the Castle, Crown Jewel (2022), even changes wrestler names like from Kacy Catanzaro to Katana Chance, Also violated WP:3RR on Hell in a Cell (2019), Roadblock: End of the Line, Hell in a Cell (2016), WWE Clash at the Castle, Crown Jewel (2022). This has been going on since November 20th, Diamond3245 Recieved Multiple warnings and was even blocked for 31 hours back on November 22nd and now is doing the same thing again. Right below is the articles that Diamond3245 is edit warring on. Diamond3245 does not use his talk page and does not use edit summeries as well.

• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit

Take a look at his Contributions since this been going on since November 20

[141]

Please indef block User:Diamond3245, he continues to add to much text to Hell in a Cell (2019) Chip3004 (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Chip3004 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Although this report is poorly formed, a quick review of Diamond3245's contributions shows that he persists in edit warring, and to date has never used a talk page. However, his ability to use fully formatted citations - example - suggests that he's an experienced user. It's been years, but there was another regular editor of wrestling articles, User:TJ Spyke, who was adamant about using piped links instead of redirects, to the point that he was eventually indeffed for outright refusing to stop.

Anyway, Diamond3245 needs to be blocked, and as you can see from the edit history of NXT Halloween Havoc (2022), User:StrangerMan123 needs instruction about what edit warring is and how to deal with problems like Diamond's edits. 184.15.234.122 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have taken action if I could see where a decent attempt to engage the user occurred. Some of the diffs above concern alleged edit warring at Hell in a Cell (2019) however that article's talk has not had a substantive edit since January 2020. Please focus on one issue and try to nicely engage the user. Then ping me if there is no satisfactory response. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked from article space with the hope of forcing communication. They have over 700 edits, have been reached out to on their talk page, and have been blocked for the behavior they're continuing and they have never responded, except to continue their editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just want to clarify that I didn't want to get into an edit warring, I just removed meaningless and unnecessary things that user Diamond3245 put in, he also changed the current name of wrestlers to the old ones for example, that's all, just wanted to clarify yourself, i wouldn't keep removing content if it weren't for that. StrangerMan123 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

We understand your head was in the right place, I'm just letting you know there are more efficient ways of dealing with editors like Diamond. If they are persistent, per WP:3RR it's better to report them at WP:AN/3 than edit warring with them. If it's the type of bad editing a non-wrestling fan would understand (and deliberately changing to the wrong names might do it) there's also WP:AIV. 184.15.234.122 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Just as i thought another sockpuppet of Diamond3245 appeared EneroFerrari, and SPI Report now created. Chip3004 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent malformed edits by IPv6 user

2804:D4B:A387:E400::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) This IPv6, clearly the same user, has made 81 edits since Nov 2, most of them reverted or otherwise corrected. I've been unsure about reporting this, because they seem good faith, but generally wrong in small ways and/or not actually adding any information: incorrect grammar[142] (they are in Brazil, fwiw), removing wikilinks[143], changing article title in the lede[144], broken syntax[145], and introducing minor factual errors[146]. This doesn't meet the AIV criteria; I can't issue a warning because the user's talk page changes every few hours (is there a way around that?). For the same reason it's futile to issue an ANI-notice. I realize I'm stalking somewhat, but I have tried to be helpful in edit summaries and my own talk page. Can they be reached? David Brooks (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I didn't include a CTA. Can anyone tell me if there's a reliable method of communicating with this user in a way that they might notice? It seems to me that there should be a feature for alerting an anonymous user whose IP falls in a /64 range. Also, is the behavior appropriate for a range block? The edits aren't vandalism, exactly, just a series (now 85) of mistakes and other changes that don't add value. David Brooks (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User: SpyridisioAnnis, multiple edit wars, disruptive editing, and WP:CIR

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

User: SpyridisioAnnis has demonstrated serious WP:CIR issues, and despite an incredibly patient community attempting to correct his behavior, he has demonstrated that he is WP:NOTHERE. A quick review of the talk page indicates a number of edit wars, disruptive editing, and a general failure to understand policy. My experience with this user is primarily driven by my experiences at WP:GA where this user has been told multiple times they were nominating/review GAs incorrectly, and demonstrated a overall failure to understand GA criteria. This discussion can be found here and is supplemented by a failure to communicate here. He was temporarily banned twice for disruptive editing and WP:EWing. User has shown a lack of understanding of what they did wrong and immediately returned to their disruptive behavior here, here, and here. In fact, if you read the discussion following that ban appeals, you will find that the user specifically stated they planned to edit war with any of the perceived 'vandalism' to their work once the ban expired.

Here and [147] it was discussed at ANI that this user has WP:CIR issues and likely some English comprehension issues. That being said, the user has shown some ability to engage in constructive editing, which leads me think his behavior is intentional. At this point, this user has been warned ad nauseam and has been informed that continued behavior would result in an indef. At the very least, we need to WP:TBAN from AFD and GA.

I'll link this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations in case anyone there wants to chime in. Etrius ( Us) 16:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the admins who've previous blocked him, and who issued the final warning today to which you refer, this is fairly obviously someone who wants to help rather than being intentionally disruptive (albeit stuff like this is veering into CIR territory). His recent talkpage history is a big heap of warnings, and he does appear to have toned it down since. Either he'll carry on being disruptive and be blocked, or the warnings will hit home and there won't be further issues; I don't see how dragging him into the ritual humiliation of ANI benefits anyone. Please, consider withdrawing this. ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually wonder if a topic ban from Good Article, article grading and the like for a short while may allow them to become established as an editor and start picking up on our policies. They've jumped into an area that they're clearly not experienced enough for. I've been watching the editor and it seems this is the bulk of their issues. Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know whether a ban from the entire Wikipedia namespace is an option, as that would rule out the GA, XfD, and PR processes. They need to learn the editing ropes they think they know, but really, really don't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The GA process takes place in the Talk namespace. —Kusma (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent I am not an admin, therefore any recourse I take has to go through ANI. Despite multiple warnings, SpyridisioAnnis still Edit warred through a GA nomination immediately after being unblocked and performed a drive by nomination despite being told explicitly not to. This comes after repeated attempts to explain to him that this behavior is inappropriate and would result in an indef. There is also the matter of disruptive speedy deletion noms and the cluster that is Wikipedia:IP vandalism. He may be a good faith editor, SpyridisioAnnis is the only one who can say for certain, but I would argue he hasn't toned it down since in any meaningful way. 2-3 last chance warnings in about 36 hours is quite a bit and their conduct at MfD has left something to be desired.

Boarders on willful disregard

-EEng

I applaud your patience but we can't keep giving him second chances. We're seeing a pattern of behavior that boarders on willful disregard of policy (or an inability to understand it). If this was just the AFC issues, I would understand and sympathize with your stance, but you can only link WP:EW so many times before it raises eyebrows. I can agree to avoiding an indef (barring further disruption by SpyridisioAnnis) but there does need to be a rather broad WP:TBAN since they've continued to disrupt WP:GA and WP:AFD despite a litany of warnings. That is also contingent on them not causing issues on the main-space.

I don't mean to be a prick about it, it has just become increasingly frustrating cleaning up the same issues over and over despite repeated attempts by multiple editors to explain the issues with his edits. Etrius ( Us) 18:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Either he screws up again (whether intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter) and gets indeffed, or he doesn't and doesn't. I'm really not sure what there is here that needs to be discussed. ‑ Iridescent 18:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm particularly worried about a 'kick-the-can-down-the-road" mentality. We tried it once and it clearly didn't work. I previously agreed to not pursue it further here unless the behavior persisted (this was during their last block). We are clearly past that point and need to consider some level of protective action. This is especially salient since this user has received multiple last chances and still managed to evade being blocked. I don't like dragging people to ANI, but there is little evidence that this user won't continue to disrupt GA and AFD. Unless you, or someone else here wants to commit to reviewing their activity edit-by-edit, I don't see any reason to prematurely close this discussion. Etrius ( Us) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It was reasonable to bring this to ANI, but we can afford to wait for the reaction to Iri's warning before taking further action. —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent and @Kusma I see Iri's message on User talk:SpyridisioAnnis. I agree that this will be sufficient since it is unambiguously clear. We can go ahead and close this matter see their response. Etrius ( Us) 19:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching their conduct since this whole saga began. At this point, I would absolutely support a TBAN from the GAN process. This user needs to demonstrate they're willing to learn, stop acting like they know everything and everyone else is always wrong, and above all stop the edit warring and other disruption. Removing them from GAN might allow them to demonstrate the ability to work productively. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The competence issue is universal. Instead of fine tuning restrictions, let us wait for the reaction to Iri's final warning. If the user still doesn't get it, we should just indef and save us further pain everywhere, not just at GAN. —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Derailing comment: GA reviews should be restricted to extended confirmed editors. EEng 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I can't say that I agree. For instance, there are a few IPs who participate in the GAN process without problems. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is a controversial take, and I have mixed feelings about it. Yes, there are A Lot of bad GA nominations put forth by new users but there is the occasional gem. One editor I know got their first GA at only total 78 edits. Another put forth 4 GAs at only ~350 edits. There are some very skilled new users and we should applaud their efforts. Everyone's first time being a GA reviewer is going to be rough, its the nature of learning. Etrius ( Us) 20:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Kusma that any issue with competence is not restricted to one or two areas. If this editor does not respond well to the advice that has been given then a ban from everything would be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to save Wikipedia, but I don’t know how I am doing the opposite. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@SpyridisioAnnis: I believe you are acting in good faith and want to help, but comments about wanting to save Wikipedia will do you few favours. To be blunt: Wikipedia, for all its flaws, does not need saving, and if it did, frankly you would not be the person to do it. That's no bad thing – things would have to be pretty damn disastrous for me to be the best hope of saving Wikipedia either!

If you want to become a productive Wikipedia contributor, my best advice to you is that you go back to the basics of what Wikipedia is all about – incremental improvements to existing articles. Don't try to create new articles, and don't get involved in backroom stuff – just make small, noncontroversial improvements to existing articles. Fix typos. Add missing information, along with citations to reliable sources which support it. Find some sources to support information already in the article which is missing citations. When you have some experience in the field, then is the time to branch out to more major editing, rewriting large parts of articles or creating new ones. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont want to get back to the basics. In fact, I want to go all the way to creating a lot of Featured Articles that are of course not the basics. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 11:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to create a lot of featured articles (which is a worthy goal!) you need to master the basics first. If you aren't capable of noncontroversial copyediting or adding citations to support claims, then you will not be able to write a Featured Article which requires you to write prose "to a professional standard", and to ensure that all claims are "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ... supported by inline citations where appropriate". At the time of writing, you have made 70 edits to article space, of which 29 have been reverted. You have made only two relatively large contributions of article text, here and here, and neither of those are Featured Article quality. Mastering the basics may not seem exciting, but if you want to create featured content, it's essential. One of those essential basics is learning to listen to the advice you have been given; you will not get an article to Featured Article if you refuse to follow any of the suggestions of the reviewers. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Caeciliusinhorto:, I think SpyridisioAnnis is using a dictionary or online translator that frequently suggests the wrong words. There are verbs in Greek that can mean "help" or "save" in different contexts, and my guess is that an autotranslator got it wrong.

@SpyridisioAnnis: one large part of the problem you have had with editing Wikipedia is that when people have asked why you made some edit, you have not tried to explain your reasons, instead you have simply said that you are right. The only way forward is for you to work hard on communicating better. Remember that machine translators are often really bad, and until you have improved your own ability to read and write in English, you will have to work very slowly and if somebody asks why you made an edit, you must do your best to explain. When someone reverts an edit you have made, ask them why, but please do not revert without discussion. Wanting to create fantastic articles is good, but nobody can do that unless they know the basics really well first, and has made many, many smaller helpful edits in the way Caeciliusinhorto suggests. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea: yes, I wondered if one of SpyridisioAnnis' problems is that they speak Greek natively and they are not fluent in English. Unfortunately for them, if they want to do things like create new articles, contribute to featured articles, review good article nominations, and write Wikipedia-space guidelines they do need to be able to communicate well in English. (SpyridisioAnnis: if you are struggling to communicate in English and you are a native speaker of Greek then you might consider contributing to el.wikipedia.org) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be getting it wrong. I don’t use any English dictionaries and I didn’t use a dictionary to write this. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 14:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Indef per [148]. Enough is enough. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed. CIR, and part of competence is knowing your capabilities (or lack of). Additionally, WP:RGW. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'd also quite like to know why we need to query twice whether the user is able to understand perfectly legible English? Does that not say something in itself? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  • My first reaction to this dif was to reply "You've got stones to say that". Etrius ( Us) 17:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• At this point I'm unsure if they're just plain incompetent or actually trolling the lot of us. I'm starting to lean towards trolling. Either way, it's dealt with. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've indeffed them for their clear statement that they refuse to follow our rules. Done. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry they've now stated that they are not unwilling, they're just unable. Same deal. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Side note: Why does Template:Infobox Wikipedia user have an |iq= parameter? (See [149].) Is that, like, a test to see who's clueless enough to fill it in? EEng 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You can blame Lcarsdata (great username, shame they're long gone) for that one. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Barelvi

Repeated removal of well sourced relevant content by User:SalamAlayka from Barelvi despite several talk page warnings. Maliner (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For those investigating the matter, I would suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114 where I explained the entire situation. Maliner clearly lacks a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works, and is resorting to petty behaviour to keep non-verifiable and unrelated content on an article. SalamAlayka (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-involved editor viewpoint. This is a content dispute and has not been taken to the talk page of the article at the very least. While not 3RR, there has been 3 reversions of the same material over the past week and Maliner has been templating an editor without trying to discuss it. I disagree with the veracity of Maliner trying to revert the edits. Most of the citations are very poor and the material cited is not found in the resources. If this is dispute is opened on the article talk page, I would be happy to discuss my findings further and how we can improve the troublesome section. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User engaging in Edit war

Hello. I recently reverted a edit of Ісса.А on the Ukrainian People's Republic page and told him if he disagrees with my decision he could bring it to the talk page and reach a consensus first. The user is now engaging in a edit war. May you take a look --Aaron106 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You meant 'edit war', I presume. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes my bad sorry. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pizzigs and I'm not perfect but I'm almost

This person reverted my grammatical edits on "Portugal national football team" to an incorrect version. I asked them to stop and they wouldn't listen. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I made changes to the history section and all of them were reverted by this person. I am quite angry that Wikipedia doesn't keep track of grammatical errors like this, and I wish someone would keep track of all my edits so they don't get reverted. (See IronMaximus for example.) Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You come here to complain about the conduct of another user, and immediately refer to them as a moron. Not the best start, I would strike that as it's a clear personal attack. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And is this all seriously about this one single revert where you made a lot of changes and didn't make any edit summary? Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't you want an article to be written properly? Pizzigs' version wasn't. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So they made a single revert on you, you warned them, they removed the warning (which they are perfectly entitled to do), you decided for some reason to reinstate that warning and then escalated it immediately to ANI? You're not coming across well here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, just give them one last warning to not revert anything on that specific page anymore, and close this thread already. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Um we're questioning your conduct here and you seriously leave this message? You are aware you do not own that article aren't you? Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You should start a discussion on the article's talk page to work out the issues. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should you, alone among all editors of Wikipedia, be immune from reversion? As has been said, talk about it on the talk page rather than re-reverting. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt they will notice or want to discuss, even if I leave a discussion on their talk page. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. I must say I'm incredibly unimpressed by your conduct here and your gross over-reaction to things to what has ultimately been a single, single, interaction and one edit. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Before you make any more comments to this thread, I strongly urge you to follow Canterbury Tail's recommendation and strike the personal attack you made above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And please follow WP:REDACT instead of just editing the message so it seems it doesn't say what it originally said. Canterbury Tail talk 20:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearly but not Perfect, let me just add to the chorus here: your reaction was way, way over the top here (and continued to be during the pendency of this thread). You can disagree with someone in a civil and collegial manner. This is miles away from that. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You warned with this message, "Stop editing my grammatical fixes to the Portuguese team's article. They were correct. One more and I'll take this to ANI or an admin." Yet you didn't allow for one more. They only reverted you once. Even after being warned twice from you for the same revert you still brought them to AN/I. This is an extreme over-reaction to a single event that could be resolved on the article talk page. Though the uncivil comment was removed from their talk page it should be noted that telling another editor that they better not revert you is never the correct path to go. I understand being frustrated but that is not a free license to be uncivil. --ARoseWolf 21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not perfect but I'm almost, I mean the article talk page. That's where edits to the article should be discussed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question has been pushing contentious information to Portugal national football team, including mentions of the failed qualification campaigns and the Olympics (!!!) which is a U23 tournament and has no relation to the senior team. Instead of considering updating the specific page dedicated to the team's history (History of the Portugal national football team), the editor preferred to introduce these materials to the main page, where they're clearly not needed. Instead of discussing their edits, the editor resorted to threats, including accusing me of violating 3RR, which I did not do. Finally, the editor used blatant personal attacks on my talk page, something which is outrageous even by social media standards. My question to the community is whether such behavior should be allowed to go unpunished. Pizzigs (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow Olympic football tournaments, and the article previously did mention failed qualifying campaigns. So I removed everything Olympic-related that I used to put and restored proper writing. That's all. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And those personal attacks have already been discussed. I let it go. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearly but not perfect, it's big of you to forgive yourself for casting aspersions on another editor, but at this point it's not really up to you whether or not the matter is resolved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

They just left another questionable comment on Pizzig's talk page, although not as egregious as the previous one. You can't just declare the discussion about your misbehavior to be over. It seems like some sort of action is needed. TPOD (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To @I'm not perfect but I'm almost: Please take a few minutes to read the policy on civility. To quote it: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.. Some of your posts have come short of that.

@Pizzigs, Wikipedia doesn't punish; restrictions/blocks/bans are issued to prevent disruption to the project.

The disagreements over specific changes to the article need to be worked out on the article's talk page by both of you (and any other interested editors). Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Four sockpuppet IP accounts

Earlier this morning I was alerted to this edit on Peter Dinklage referring to him as a "midget" and someone with "embarassin height and stature." Upon reviewing this user's history, I then noticed a similarly bizarre edit on Wilhelm Nowack. I reverted both edits and posted a level one and a level two warning on the user's talk page. A couple things happened after that.

• About two hours later, a different IP user left a reply to my warnings saying hello, I did not mean to make disruptive edits I am not a vandal even if it seems that way I just started editing a while ago and I am familiarizing myself with everything and thank you for pointing everything out to me.

• About an hour after that a third and fourth user began blanking out the warnings and reply on the first users page, leaving extremely long and bizarre profanity laced troll edit summaries behind. These edits are here, here and here.

This edit called out User:Nthep, an adminstrator, by name. This edit called out User:Ohnoitsjamie. The edit summary claims that they are removing "bullshit and vandalism" by these editors, but the IP user is only blanking out their own vandalism.

• About 37 minutes after that, a fourth IP account started blanking out even more content - here and here and here - with similar long bizarre edit summaries to the ones left previously.

• I also noticed that the third IP account left an unsourced edit referencing Michael Shermer's height on his page. Considering that the first offending edit this morning was about Peter Dinklage's height. I think it's safe to say they are the same editor.

The IP accounts are User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:E867:E166:E02B:6518, User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:596B:69C9:2B08:1E92, User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:DD65:6DD7:1D23:79EA and User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:6147:B88:944C:EE44.

I propose that an administrator speedily block all four of these accounts and any more that came from the same IP address. Warm regards, Kire1975 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Range blocked for three months. Nthep (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads-up to Kire1975: if two or more users share the same first four segments of an IPv6 address and seem to be the same person, they probably are. End-user systems regularly randomize the last 64 bits of an address just to fool... well, nobody, really. David Brooks (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Kire1975 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Long-term unexplained removal of categories from a Toronto IP range

2605:8D80:680::/47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

During the CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_28#Category:Fictional_medicines_and_drugs, I discovered that an IP user has been wantonly removing categories for fictional elements without any explanation, causing this category to be depopulated. Sometimes, they will add new categories to articles, which are often redundant or inaccurate. Most of the affected pages are redirects (example from November 25; example from 2021 January 2), but more problematic examples at articles include:

• Progesterex on 23 August 2022: Removed the (correct) Category:Fictional medicines and drugs and added 3 new categories, 2 of which are not accurately applied for this urban legend.
• Sahara Sea on 11 September 2022: Removed the page from Category:Fictional oceans and seas, and added various dubious, typically in-universe categories. Was reverted twice by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs).
• Slough of Despond on 12 October 2022: Removed the page from Category:Fictional bodies of water, though this edit is otherwise unproblematic.

I believe I have reverted most of the affected pages. The most recent edit where a user in this range removed a fictional element category is at Futmalls on 25 November 2022.

This is likely a range used by many people, based on anomalous behavioral evidence such as this vandal edit from yesterday. And as the suspect seems to use many different IP addresses in the range, I am not sure which IP address in the range should receive the ANI notice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editing by user Smefs

Could I get some more eyes on this?
Smefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing is fringe / pseudoscience.

• Removed that Disclose.tv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a fake-news website. There are four citations supporting that.

1. 10:21, 27 November 2022 ES: "This edit is to ensure neutrality. There are very few unbiased sources that support the article's narrative. The text of the article has been edited to more fall in line with the information provided by the cited sources."
2. 10:40, 27 November 2022 ES: "Reverted"
3. 11:18, 27 November 2022 ES: "Undid revision 1124107233 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view"
4. 11:29, 27 November 2022 ES: Undid revision 1124112044 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view" (Current state of article as of now)

• On Protests against responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), removed "and other measures have also been driven by COVID-19 misinformation, conspiracy theories, far-right and other extremist groups and individuals." 10:21, 27 November 2022 ES: "Grammatical errors and ensuring neutrality".
• On Responsible Future (Iceland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) refactored "party that promotes COVID-19 misinformation and misinformation around vaccines" replacing it with "generally vaccine-skeptical party, campaigning primarily on this issue" 21:00, 3 November 2022 ES: "Ensuring neutrality."

• DS-ps notice: 11:03, 27 November 2022 - reverted by Smefs and replaced with a {{Ds/aware|ps}}
• EW notice: 11:24, 27 November 2022 - reverted by Smefs
• Some discussion took place on Smefs' talk page with some spill-over on mine. Also, Smefs was kind enough to leave me an
  • EW notice: 11:27, 27 November 2022
  • DS-ps notice: 11:06, 27 November 2022 which Smefs immediately removed.

Adakiko (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I'd be happy to give a more accurate read on this if anyone is interested. Smefs (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Smefs: Put it below this line. Adakiko (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Also, read WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. On Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Smefs does not seem to have read those two, nor WP:WAR, nor WP:BRD. See [150]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Edit warring noticeboard: wp:EWN#User:Smefs reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) Adakiko (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Solijonovm1996

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.

---

Solijonovm1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User seems to be on a nationalistic mission to Uzbekify various articles, here's why;

Kara-Khanid Khanate: Edit warring in the article [151] [152] [153], constantly attempting to add the Modern Cyrillic Uzbek transliteration. Neither Uzbek (which didnt exist back then) and especially not the Cyrillic script was used by the khanate. And obviously the article doesn't mention anything about it either.

Samarkand: Removed several non-Uzbek tranliterations [154] and sourced info about its Iranian/Persian/Tajik connection [155]. They were reverted, but then engaged in edit warring [156] [157] [158]

Their talk page is filled with a lot of recent warnings, which clearly haven't helped. They haven't even used the talk page of an article once. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Best we deal with this before it gets out of hand - edits of this nature are of great concern. As most are aware Uzbekistan human rights record is so appalling that the country is considered one of today’s most repressive regimes in the world. Moxy- 15:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Solijonovm1996 has been warned four times more since this ANI report [159] [160] [161] [162]. Can someone please do something? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Try AIV next time; I filed a report and the user has been indeffed.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 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.

Ali banu sistani

Ali banu sistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long have I hestitated to report this disruptive user. The last straw came today when I discovered they been bad-mouthing me a few days ago, when I haven't even been in contact with him since June 2022 (!). You'll see the diff for it down below. Back in 7 February 2021, an admin warned him to refrain from harrassing me [163]. I have also warned them on multiple occasions (eg [164] [165]). Looks like they haven't learned.

18 January 2021 why don't the Iranians call the legal right? This was the first time they communicated with me, referring to me as an "Iranian" rather by my username.

7 February 2021 [166] Created a section at WP:AN titled "Iranian provocateur on wikipedia", with the following message; " I don't understand why Iranian contributors roll back legal edits concerning Balochi? Chasing Balochi Articles and rolling back legal edits while making fake edits is complete vandalism by the Iranians!"

7 February 2021 why don't the Parrsi call the legal right? This time referring to me as "Parsi" (Persian).

7 February 2021 "There are alternative explanations for this: you get paid and you just do your job, guarding articles day and night that are in the interests of Persian nationalists. Do what you want, but do not break the rules of Wikipedia, do not spread such false information. your actions suggest that you just want to destroy Baloch history! don't do it please..."

7 February 2021 "pay attention to my answer Historyofiran I just ask them not to spread false information, please do not pass by."

2 April 2021 [167] Randomly reverted me in an area they never edit. In other words; more harrassment.

9 November 2022 "but basically it is the history of the Baloch people, who are not very respectful of the right on Wikipedia from Iran, sort of like a member of Historyofiran."

I think it's high time they learn the consequences of such bad behaviour. Don't even let me get started on their pov-pushing, such as recently here [168], when they tried to make the ludicrous claim that the "Baloch are the heirs of the Parthians." using a unverifiable obscure source (which is their usual go to). Or here, where they removed sourced info with no edit summary [169].

This user has (surprisingly) been here for four years, yet still don't know how to act even half decently. If I may so boldly say the only reason they haven't indeffed yet is because they edit in very obscure articles which are barely seen (let alone edited) by others. Anyhow, if they keep bothering me I will also include a list of their pov edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. Imo, this is a pretty obvious case of WP:HARASSMENT, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Eleven days have passed. Can someone please take a look at this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Are the incomprehensible comments at Talk:Balasagan related to your revert of their edit at Balasagan? Can you briefly explain their point? They have not edited since a few hours before the start of this report and I can't see a knock-out diff that warrants an indef so I won't take action at the moment. However, I am prepared to look at future problems. If they arise, please try to engage the user without a template. Briefly explain to them the problem and ask for a response. After waiting, ping me to the page but I will need a brief explanation focused on one or two problems, no more. They received an ARBIPA sanctions alert in March 2021. Would the issues in this report be covered by WP:ARBIPA? If so, I could update the alert. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a indef (though I certainly wouldn't be against it), I'm asking for just anything really. Since this user simply hasn't learned from all this. Engaging them with or without template is not the issue here, this user lacks simple proper behaviour, and (respectfully) it's not something me nor Wikipedia has to teach them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks pretty stale to me. As user is inactive, a timed block doesn't mean much, and as noted above, it's just about not bad enough to warrant an indef. If the user pops up again and continues the same activity, though, it should be a fairly straightforward trip to WP:AIV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks AirshipJungleman29! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Torture in Ukraine: Masebrock, Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, Elinruby

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.

---

Posting here as an uninvolved user. Torture in Ukraine and its talk page are currently the subject of edit warring and unproductive argument. User:Masebrock, User:Gitz6666, and User:Volunteer Marek have been undoing one another's edits between November 22 and today. Masebrock and Gitz appear to be having WP:LISTEN issues regarding the consensus on the article's scope and sourcing. Volunteer Marek has been engaging in severely inappropriate conduct on the talk page for several days. This has also caused spillover warring at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I suspect that this extends to sanctions enforcement for one or more involved users, but I do not feel that I'm qualified to make that decision or initiate such a proceeding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Russia also has this spillover. Those of us that somewhat watch over the page are simply waiting for it to be over so we can move forward on other aspects that need review. Moxy- 19:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute due to the possible sourcing misrepresentation, that’s what it is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz feels that the article should not mention any torture by Russians. That's a lot more than a "content dispute." 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat involved editor here. I am the one who screamed for help at NPOVN. I have not been doing any reverting, but I have definitely expressed an opinion, several times. I will confine myself to saying a quick couple of things, then I will let other people talk.

Only yesterday I had to instruct Gitz in WP:ONUS. It was not the first time and I do not think it will be the last. He seems to simply disregard what other editors tell him, and the current talk page contains several instances of him asking other editors to explain their objections to something as a reply to original posts where they do exactly that. I cannot articulate a reason for this, but I have been watching this happen over and over again to one editor after another since at least June, when he argued with me about a point of French grammar which is... simply a fact. Walls of text are a given. He very "courteously" patronized me on my talk page until I asked him to stay off of it.

I do not think that "waiting until it is over" is the answer. It is never over. After a lengthy and painful insistence at the reliable sources noticeboard that the Russian constitution was the best source for Russia's jurisdiction over the Donbas he moved on to the torture in Ukraine article, where he has been advocating removal of all mentions of torture by Russians, and yesterday asked me to explain how rape would not be off-topic in an article about torture.

It is unfortunate that VM allowed himself to be goaded into the crossed-out outburst, but frankly he speaks for all of us who had a consensus to redirect the article (nine editors). VM was trying to defend the principles of Wikipedia, which Gitz has repeatedly questioned, complaining here of personal attacks when he did not like the answers. Multiple good editors are on wikibreaks from the article because of Gitz. This was all going on at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine before this.

I realize that such statements require diffs, and I will edit them in over the next day or so, but I need to deal urgently with a RL situation due to weather, and almost all of this is right on the talk page of the above article, and what is there is imho sufficient to illustrate what I just said. When I come back with diffs, I will start with the ones that are on other pages. Gotta go for now but TL;DR imho VM is correct; in a very real sense he would not have had to comb through all that harrowing material if Gitz had not reverted a redirect of what consensus said was a really terrible and disingenuous bit of disinformation. Elinruby (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby Yeah, I have notice the same - (PS - VM promptly struck his outburst without anybody asking them to do it) Hats down to the rest of you for keeping cool in those conditions 👍) (a little involved) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Since involved editors are chiming in, here is a sample of the conduct on the talk page from Elinruby [170] and User:Volunteer Marek [171]. This edit to the main article is particularly telling [172]: Seven sources and 3,000 characters of text were blanked because it was in the "wrong tense". Masebrock (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is completely false and in fact quite illustrative of the WP:TEND and WP:GAME attitude that Masebrock and Gitz6666 have brought to this article. The text was not blanked just because it was "wrong tense". It was removed because the text falsely pretended that what was true in 2014 is still true today and was blatantly misrepresenting the sources. I don't know how to else explain it to Masebrock - if the source does not say what the text claims it says then that text can and should be removed. Restoring such text, AFTER it's been explained that the source is being lied about - is extremely disruptive and frankly should be met with a straight up ban. How can we trust editors who routinely misrepresent sources? Volunteer Marek 01:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary is there for everyone to see. I will quote in its entirety: "hmm, how about you get the tense right and stop pretending that this is current practice and maybe something about this can be included". If you meant to object for some other reason, perhaps you should have written that reason instead. Would love to discuss questions of misrepresentation of sources on the talk page, please make sure to provide current (that is, not already resolved) examples. Masebrock (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, please stop describing edits that you don't think perfectly summarize the source (such as having the wrong tense) as "lies", and editors who make these errors as "pretending". Masebrock (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The "wrong tense" was being used to mislead the reader on purpose. It's as if someone is in an abusive, violent, relationship. They leave that relationship. They find a new partner who is not abusive. Yet you want to write "their partner is beating the shit out of them" in present tense in order to make it seem like their current partner is the problem. I'm sorry but this kind of game-playing is simply dishonest and trying to downplay it as "just a matter of tense" only compounds your fault here. Volunteer Marek 04:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"The "wrong tense" was being used to mislead the reader on purpose." If this isn't a violation of WP:GOODFAITH, I don't know what is. Masebrock (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. One only needs to look at the editing history of the creator of the article [173] to see that this was a short-lived WP:SPA that made 27 edits total, all of them with pretty clear intention of POV pushing. Like Adoring nanny said, when a normal person looks at that version of the article one gets the impression that it came straight out of Kremlin propaganda office. But apparently that wasn't your or Gitz6666's impression. That's the problem. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is par for the course by User:Volunteer Marek: [174][175]. Elinruby seems to think you can avoid having to assume good faith simply by peppering their comments with the acronym "AGF":[176][177] Masebrock (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Masebrock Yeah, that's the burst that was immediately struck by the person who posted it. But I'm more curious in what you have to say about the troubling sources instead. Why do they seem not to express what’s written into the article? (refer to details on talk page). - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to talk about this! In fact, I addressed your concerns right here [178] but I'm still waiting for your response. I would indeed love an elaboration and discussion on how the sentence "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Russian forces have been documented" is being falsified by these sources [179][180][181][182] Please, continue. Let's discuss. Masebrock (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Masebrock, you know very well that that wasn't the argument. Those sources DO support THAT text. The problem was with you pretending that these sources support this text: "" numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented" which you added here. NONE of these sources say ANYTHING about Ukrainians doing this. ALL of these sources are about Russians doing this. This is indeed straight up misrepresenting sources and pretending they say what they don't say at all.

There was another instance in the article where "Russians committed murder" (which is what sources said) was sneakily replaced by "Ukrainians committed murder" (what the sources did not say). The whole article was a piece of junk with this kind of falsehoods. And that was the version you and Gitz6666 were edit warring to restore. Despite objections of at least 9 editors. You deserve at very least a topic ban if not a site ban for these kinds of hi-jinks. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Pretending"? I was not "pretending". I made a small, simple error (thinking that the sentence in question referred to 2014-2022 instead of 2022 alone) that I quickly moved to correct. Do you really want to continue casting aspersions at me on the Administrators' noticeboard? Masebrock (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not "move quickly to correct" this "simple error" (which involved inserting false claims into the article and pretending that sources supported it), you kept defending it on talk. Gitz6666 did realize that you f'ed up here, went to far, the POV-pushing became a little too over the top and obvious, and swooped in to save your butt, undoing that edit quickly before anyone noticed. Volunteer Marek 04:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Literally my first response upon your pointing out that the sentence in question referred only to 2022 was "I also didn't notice that references to the War in Donbass had been removed from the lead. Again, easily fixable, no need for hysterics. I will make these edits now." Right here [183] if anyone wants to take a look. In your initial profanity-filled tirade (the one where you say "Fuck you.") you did not mention this critical detail (the year 2022 instead of 2014-2022), so I did not yet notice it.

I am begging outside observers to take note of what Volunteer Marek is repeatedly doing here. Masebrock (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Literally my first response upon your pointing out Nope. False again. This is your first response. In which you basically say "well, it's okay if I misrepresented THESE sources because I was just summarizing what the body of the article says and here is some other sources". Except the body of the article said nothing like that. And these other sources were for something different. See how tiring this is? Volunteer Marek 05:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you mention that the sentence in question only encompasses 2022 and not 2014-2022 in your "Fuck you" post? No you did not. So my response to that was not my first response to learning the year issue. I'm done here with the bad faith accusations. Go shout at a wall. Masebrock (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The misrepresentation was introduced here[184] by Masebrock. The phrase "both Ukrainian and" was inserted into the lead and is not supported by any of the four cited sources.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. I inadvertently added this misrepresentation yesterday in an attempt to restore the stable version of the lead, not realizing that the paragraph had become bifurcated into separately describing the torture in the War in Donbass and the 2022 conflict, instead of combining them as one as it had done since 2019. I didn't catch that the sentence in question referred to only 2022 conflict instead of the 2014-2022 conflict. So I accidentally misrepresented the sources, saying that Ukraine had been committing torture in 2022 (which was not supported by the sources) instead of during the broader 2014-2022 conflict (which was). When this was brought to my attention I quickly moved to correct it,[185] but Gitz beat me to it.[186]. I have been perfectly open about this mistake since the moment I made it. Masebrock (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Beat you to it huh? While at that time you falsely claiming you were just "modifying the lead to match the body of the text" (there's absolutely nothing in the body about this) [187]

Sources say "Russians committed torture and murder". Four of them. Which go into disturbing detail. Anyone who at least bothered clicking on the sources would know this.

You come along and change it to "Russians AND Ukrainians committed torture and murder". Even though not a single source present says that.

Oh yeah, then you tried to claim there were "OTHER" sources that supported it. Except all the sources provided were from 2016, whereas here we're discussing events of 2022. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're literally just reiterating what I wrote myself in the previous comment, but in a snarky way that implies I was acting bad faith. Masebrock (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And at any rate the error has been fixed, and all parties agree it has been resolved, so further talk of "misrepresenting sources" needs to find something else to point to. Masebrock (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes but it took a couple days, numerous comments and threat of sanctions for restoring falsely sourced info for you guys to budge even a little. Volunteer Marek 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Five hours and twelve minutes. That's how long my accidental misrepresentation remained on the page. [188],[189]. Even more, it was deleted by Gitz only 30 minutes after it was brought to our attention (he beat me to it). [190],[191] Masebrock (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I promised to let other people talk, but I have a couple of minutes here while I am waiting for the cab, so please bear with me. Re: "wrong tense", a book published in 2015 was being used to source a statement that in 2022 Ukrainian forces are torturing people. UNDUE when an effort is afoot to remove from the article mentions of the Russians doing so, and definitely anachronistic for the statement. Re the VM snippet, Masebrock fails to mention that VM struck the outburst immediately afterwards, according to GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) above, without prompting. This seems like a pertinent fact which has been misrepresented right here. Re my snippet: I said what I said and I stand by it, unless someone tells me I made an error of fact, in which case I will reassess. Note that much is also made of a Brigade Tornado supposedly torturing people. I am an agnostic on this point, but according to Xx236 (talk · contribs), I believe, the brigade was disbanded in 2015, therefore the unit is not as a unit doing anything at all in 2022 let alone torturing people. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that the deleted text about the Tornado brigade explicitly said that is was disbanded in 2015 and did not in anyway suggest that it was actively torturing people. Deleting it on grounds of it "not doing anything at all in 2022" is just baffling. Masebrock (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you say so. For reference, my comment above is about this thread. If I misread it, I misread it, but I don't think I did, and I don't want to argue with *you* about it here. Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Diffs are easy to check. [192] Masebrock (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok? I fail to see your point. Mine is that this is what I was talking about. I gave you a link to the entire thread. Do with it as you wish. Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There are probably articles that we cannot even come close to writing properly due to information problems, this topic screams as such as topic that it is far better to wait until the current war is done, and historians can have their chance to review events so that we can summarize properly and without this type of fighting. There is no requirement that we have to be perfectly up to date on topics (its a nice feature but not required) and there's no deadline for getting it right. Masem (t) 04:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice, content dispute spills over here now. Maybe it’s better to continue on the related talk pages instead? What do you folks say? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is about way more than a content dispute. The problem as I see it is that we cannot believe what Gitz6666 says, and *he* doesn't care what the policy says. And is exceedingly tone-deaf. How is rape not off-topic in an article about torture? YaySUS. There is a pattern of editing here that is very problematic. This is the first time I've encountered Masebrock, mind you, but to my mind it isn't looking good. Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong number of negations in your sentence about rape, but also I think you are misrepresenting the discussion of that -- at no point did Gitz argue that rape would not be on-topic or make you defend the position that it would be. (Your comment about rape was cryptic at best; Gitz didn't understand it, and Gitz explained that clearly. Then there was some incredibly tedious personalized huffing and puffing on both sides, but mostly by you. The main takeaway from that exchange is that it would be better if you took the time to express yourself more clearly in the first instance.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure who you are, but sure, I am capable of using the wrong number of negatives. I am not sure which sentence you mean though. What I wanted to know was this: Since apparently we are going with "blow it up and start over", instead of "redirect", because Gitz, has anyone included any of the many instances of rape into the new version? His reply was "How is this not off-topic?" with some extra, untrue, snark for flavor.
I found this reply extremely offensive and also take personal offense at Gitz' repeated insinuations that I cannot express myself clearly in my native language. I try to avoid and/or rephrase US idiom and cultural references for his benefit, and I get this stuff, not to mention lengthy condescending lectures about French, a language from which I routinely translate here, and that he doesn't even claim to speak himself.
Peace the hell back out; this is a good illustration of Gitz' combative discussion style, but the substance of the exchange itself is peripheral to the main issue here. In my eyes, the issue here is PoV-pushing and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which he himself confirms when he says somewhere in this dumpster fire that he has consciously elected not to read any of my posts. Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, either, but I am capable of reading the discussion. The sentence with the wrong number of negatives is How is rape not off-topic in an article about torture?. This kind of sloppy writing is bound to confuse people. You should refresh your memory of WP:AGF, and not engage in personalized ranting when it is not necessary (like here, or there, or pretty much anywhere ever). --JBL (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

hmm perhaps the direct quote would have been better, typed out as "How is [rape] not off-topic?" but this instance of combative "discussion" is still merely that, and in this thread I am here to try to point out the larger pattern. You on the other hand seem to be picking a typographic nit, and sure, ok, fine, in future I will try to avoid indirect quotes in these situations. I already try to avoid ANI dumpster fires when at all possible, though, so the suggestion seems gratuitous. Thank you for the typographical suggestion however, I guess. Elinruby (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Look on the bright side. Now a responding admin need not even click away from ANI before seeing that a few users need a polite nudge in the right direction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• With regard to the numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented, the point has already been clarified ad nauseam. Masebrock made a mistake that they immediately acknowledged on the article talk page; as soon as I noticed the mistake, I removed it form the article (my third revert in 24 h yesterday) and Masebrock thanked me for that. A momentary inattention is not worth of community discussion.
• However, Volunteer Marek's repeated claims that this piece of shit article was straight up lying, whoever put the original text in simply lied, there's outright lying, removing outright lies and misrepresentations of sources, outright lying, and so on and so on - these claims are themselves a misrepresentation of sources, and deserve community discussion.
• The main issue with the article has always been WP:BALANCE, but in terms of verifiability and sources it was decent. Yes, there were a few issues - mistakes or, if one wants, "lies" - that could have been easily fixed and that were actually fixed also by myself: e.g. the sentence Ukrainian civil society prefers to ignore, which is actually very bed - I tagged it and then removed it; a reference to mass murders of prisoners, that VM rightly removed; a reference to neo-nazi, that I removed; past tense/present tense, which is a matter of MOS rather than lies, and could be easily fixed; "Tornado" as infamous example, which was not sourced but could have been easily sourced with this "scandalous battalion" (Скандальний батальйон) or simply removed; two WP:BIASED but not unreliable sources (Hahn and De Ploeg), which nonetheless quoted reliable sources (Amnesty, HRW, Der Spiegel) and could be replaced or supplemented with them.
• The point worth discussing is the following. We had a promising, reasonably sourced text, which was based on Amnesty, HRW and on a courageous report by three Ukrainian HR organisations (this one), plus The Times, Der Spiegel, Vox of America, the pro-Maidan Kuzio and the anti-Maidan Hahn and De Ploeg. And VM repeatedly removed that text claiming that it was "full of lies" and that he enjoyed a strong consensus while intense discussions were going on on the talk: [193][194][195][196] [197][198][199].
• The text was not full of lies and the few errors that were there could be easily corrected and were quickly corrected. But VM did not want to correct the errors, he wanted to delete the article completely: am I wrong Volunteer Marek? I know I'm not wrong. So if you want to delete an article, AfD is the right way to go. I really wonder why you think you can behave like this.
• Another point that maybe requires discussion is Elinruby's disgraceful behaviour towards me. I asked him many times to refrain from personal attacks (two amongst many: If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help [200], I don't know why you, some random lawyer in Italy, choose to devote all this time to Those Poor Misunderstood Russians, but seriously dude, you are embarrassing yourself[201]) but he never obliged, he always replied with arrogance and defiance, so much so that to protect myself from stress, yesterday I decided not to read his comments any more, wherever they are posted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

am I wrong Volunteer Marek? Yes. You are completely wrong. Anyone who thinks that this version of the article was "pretty decent" or that it was "a promising, reasonably sourced text" has no business editing this topic area (or for that matter an encyclopedia). Yes, that version, which you edit warred to restore against the consensus of nine editors (while of course claiming false consensus yourself), was indeed full of lies and source misrepresentation. I already explained this to you half a dozen times. I provided the diffs. I provided the diffs of where I provide diffs (here). Yet you keep repeating the same false claims. This is such a textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that it's driving not just me but as can be seen from the above discussion multiple other editors up the wall.

There was consensus to redirect the article. Or clean it up by rewriting it completely. Nine editors. You restored that messed up version and had the audacity to claim repeatedly that because the article survived an AfD the version that was full of POV and source misrepresentation was "stable" and must be kept. It was pointed out to you multiple times, even by the editors who voted "keep" that the keep !votes also recommended "keep but rewrite" (here is the AfD). Yet you kept repeating the line that because it survived an AfD the original version must be kept. This is even more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

This is why this whole thing blew up. You and Masebrock kept restoring an old messed up version of the article and insisting it must be kept "cuz it's stable" and you were doing so against consensus on talk page and when various editors tried to explain to you the problems with that version you just kept ignorin' and edit warrin' and repeating same false claims ad nauseum. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And I'm getting really tired of repeating the same thing because you simply refuse to listen, but in this diff I list the editors who supported redirecting/rewriting the article. The users wereMichael Z, User:Adoring nanny, User:Xx236, User:Elinruby, User:GizzyCatBella, User:Lute88, User:Fermiboson, User:Cambial Yellowing and myself. You and Masebrock *ignored* this consensus and kept edit warring while obfuscating on talk. The edit warring by both of you involved either restoring false sourcing or even adding false text to the article. You both deserve topic bans at minimum here, both for violating content guidelines (WP:V, WP:NPOV) and behavioral guidelines (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Volunteer Marek 03:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

When I first came to the article, it looked like it had been written in the Kremlin[202]. It was also stable in the same state for the entire month of September, and some time before and after. VM's comments are justified in substance, though it would not hurt to tone them down. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yet you kept repeating the line that because it survived an AfD the original version must be kept. No, I've never said this. Where did I say so? My very first comment in the talk page starts with This article needs improvement.
• I already explained this to you half a dozen times. I provided the diffs. I provided the diffs of where I provide diffs. Unfortunately our fellow editors may not have time to go through your diffs and see that they don't lead to anything new than what I have already said here. One is about "Tornado" as infamous example - duly noted and mentioned above, and anyway they were pretty infamous, since they forced their prisoners to sodomise each other and systematically subjected them to electroshock. One is about Russian militias in Donbass who murdered prisoners - idem, see here above, re "mass murders"; that was a mistake (or a lie) that needed to be fixed, and was easily fixable. One is about de Ploeg - non reliable; you say so, AFIK he's biased but reliable, but we don't needed him anyway, I agreed on removing him and use Der Spiegel instead. One is about the present tense issue: big issue eh. One is Kuzio: for some reason you didn't want me to say "in 2015" to contextualize his claim but instead you wanted to say "before the Revolution of Dignity": what's the difference? And on the basis of these easily amendable trifles you remove Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the Ukrainian HR ONGs?!? It doesn't make sense: you just didn't want the article online, that's it. The Ukrainian people and their government need to be one and the same thing in a time of war: no dark spots are tolerable.
• the consensus of nine editors. Are you sure they were nine? Please, their usernames. ButI know that I was not alone in reverting your massive removals, also two experienced editors agreed (Alaexis and Masebrock), and other three editors had already reverted similar removals of text in recent times.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet you keep referring to the original POV version as "decent" and "promising, reasonably sourced text" and tried restoring it multiple times. This despite that it was pointed out repeatedly that the sources didn't say what that version claimed they said.

And yes, "present tense" IS a big issue, since using present tense to discuss things that happened before 2014 - as if they were true today - was being done in order to falsely pretend that the abuses that the Ukrainians revolted against in 2014 were actually done by them. The text was purposefully written in a misleading way. Again, if you think that this is "no big deal", you really have no business editing this topic.

The Amnesty and HRW were removed because they were being misrepresented. Here is the Amnesty source. It does say that both sides engaged in torture but it also says that only the pro-Russian forces carried out murders and summary executions. Yet the version of the article you kept restoring claimed that murders and summary executions were carried out by Ukrainians. Again, falsifying what the source actually said.

And so you finally see these nine editors? Except you initially didn't? The fact that there were nine people disagreeing with you was pointed out to you before, it was obvious from the talk page and ... you, just, now, are, realizing, it? THAT right there is a perfect illustration of your inability to listen to others and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems that makes any kind of collaborative work with you impossible.

And we already know Masebrock supported you in these sorry endeavors. Which is why BOTH of you deserve topic bans for restoring or inserting material into the article with false sourcing. And if you going to count the "three editors" who restored some portions of this piece of garbage several months ago, then we can also count all the editors who tried to remove this nonsense several months ago. You're reaching for straws. Volunteer Marek 04:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone writes an article in 2019 using a 2015 source (the openly pro-Maidan Kuzio) on conditions of prisons in Ukraine; obviously they use the present tense, as any inexperienced editor who had not studied the MOS by heart would do. How do you interpret this? done in order to falsely pretend. Congratulations for your ability to AGF. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

After doing some spot-checking of Volunteer Marek's list of "editors who support redirecting or rewriting" (interpreted by himself as removal of all content) on the talk page, it doesn't hold up. User:Xx236 made no such comment whatsoever and their inclusion on this list is baffling. The last comment User:Adoring nanny said when Volunteer Marek was mass deleting content was I do not, yet, have an opinion whether the article should exist or not[...] I am going to stay out of the delete/restore wars for now. Meanwhile you fail to mention the fairly sizable number of editors who have expressed preferences for non-redirection of the article in the AfD. No consensus was achieved at the time of your mass deletions, despite your repeated claims. Masebrock (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Masebrock:That selective quotation does a remarkable job of creating a misleading impression of my full post.[203] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand. Are you saying your position at the time was that the article should be deleted or redirected, and that I should have known that from your post that begins with "''I do not, yet, have an opinion whether the article should exist or not..."? Masebrock (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that you misrepresented my full post.[204] You further used that misrepresentation above to say that I did not support "redirecting or rewriting." Based on my full post, you should have known that I did support "redirecting or rewriting." The only question was which one. By restoring the version I was objecting to, you were effectively preventing "redirecting or rewriting."Adoring nanny (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The things is, I agree with your sentiment here "...the Restore people need to think about just what they are restoring. The Hahn material should not be restored. I haven't gone through VM's subsequent deletions to see if they shouldn't be restored either. But if you are restoring, it could be a good idea to consider just what you are restoring." Absolute agreement, and indeed the material in question in your post is now removed (as it should be). But also, the "delete people" need to carefully consider what it is they are deleting. The page is not so long that it would be a burdensome task to discuss each section, or even sentence of sourced material, on the talk page before deletion. The page has already gone under significant revision since the initial controversy and is in much better shape than when it started. Masebrock (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop trying to bamboozle people. Adoring nanny and Xx236 can speak for themselves. Here is Adoring nanny saying you introduced misrepresentations into the article. Here is Adoring nanny saying that the version you guys were restoring looks like it was written by the Kremlin [205]. Here is Adoring nanny saying that parts of the version you guys were edit warring to restore pretty much qualified as WP:HOAX [206]. Here is Adoring nanny saying that while they're undecided whether article should be made into a redirect or rewritten, they're sure that big chunks of text (which you kept restoring) need to go [207]. A quick look at Xx236's comments on talk also make it clear they were deeply unsatisfied with the garbage version you two kept restoring.

And again you're repeating the misleading claim about the AfD. Yes, the article was kept at AfD, but as has been pointed, what half a dozen times now???? almost all the Keep !votes also said it needed to be rewritten. So yes there was consensus for removing all the trash and false claims from it. The fact that you are incapable of recognizing this and keep using these cries of "no consensus! no consensus!" when there clearly was such a consensus (along with your misrepresentations of WP:NOCONSENSUS on talk) again shows why you should be topic banned here. Volunteer Marek 04:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course everyone agrees that we should remove the "trash and false" claims from the article. The entire debate is what the "trash and false claims" are. You can't just mass delete well-sourced content, and then claim that its not up for debate because people agreed the article needs to be rewritten. The debate over content is what rewriting means. I've said all I will on this topic. Masebrock (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently not since both you and Gitz kept restoring “trash and false” claims into the article and defending that version on talk (and Gitz is still doing it here). It. Wasnt. “Well sourced content”. It was trash and false claims. Volunteer Marek 04:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Re consensus. In Italian we have a saying, arrampicarsi sugli specchi, "climbing on the mirrors". I believe in English it's "grasping at straws", right? edit warred to restore against the consensus of nine editors. Nine editors against three - wow, what a strong consensus you had behind. And it doesn't really matter that no one explained why this big chunk of text [208] had to be removed from the article. I opened a thread on the part about the secret detention centers and the only one who replied was Elinruby saying TL;DR. Please make a specific proposal about a specific piece of text (the specific proposal was obviously to restore the text I had just posted in the OP); I opened a thread on the part about the volunteer battalions where I proposed to retain just a small piece of it in the article (My proposal: we move the first two paragraphs to Volunteer battalions and Special Tasks Patrol Police, and we keep in this article the third paragraph). The only voices I heard were yours and Elinruby's.

Yes, other editors had lamented the bias of the article, and rightly so: it was indeed biased; others had raised doubts about Hahn and de Ploeg as sources, which we could have happily removed from the article with no damage (at 22:43, 26 November 2022, I explained I removed all references to De Ploeg. I honestly don't know if he's reliable or not, but I know that we don't need him [209]). Everything could have been easily accommodated without removing the substance of the thing, which was: at least until 2015, reliable sources (Kuzio 2015 quoting the Council of Europe, and Human Rights Encyclopedia 2001) say that torture of detainees was common in Ukrainian prisons, and in 2014-2015 various HR organisations (such as the quoted Amnesty [210][211], HRW [212], OHCHR [213][214], Ukranian NGOs [215]) detailed extensive practices of torture and ill-treatment against POWs and civilian residents by volunteer battalions active in the Donbas area.

You didn't want this content to appear in the article, ok? actually you didn't want the article on "torture in Ukraine" to exist at all. But I'm sorry, you had no consensus for this. If you want to delete the whole article, AfD is the way to go. If you want to turn it into a redirect or remove 2/3 of the text and there's reasoned and good-faith opposition by editors (initially Alaexis and me), well then you open an RdC and let's have an orderly and inclusive discussion, where sources can be carefully assessed and you can explain how removing all this would be in compliance with WP policies. That's how one builds a consensus in a collaborative project, but that's not your manner. You just edit war again and again, and falsely accuse editors of lying while claiming a consensus that you didn't have. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just see the comment by Fermiboson below. Nine editors were of the opinion that the article should be either redirected or “blanked” or turned into stub, it was so bad. But two editors, you and Masebrock kept restoring that very version that everyone thought should be nuked. You can be snarky and try to make fun of how “only nine editors” (vs two) isn’t consensus… except it actually is. Volunteer Marek 14:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Nine against three is no consensus, especially when the nine have expressed their views on various topics other than "Shall we delete the article?". Re deleting the article, the only WP:consensus was the one that had emerged from the failed AfD. Faced with reasoned opposition, AfD (or RfC to remove 2/3 of the article) were the way to go rather than childish edit warring based on a non existing consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nine against three is no consensus lol 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: I prefer a redirect or even wholesale deletion of the article to retaining any portion of whatever trash was there beforehand, and I'm sure others here (if they were not deterred by the borderline bludgeon wall of text above) would concur. Misleading and malicious information, especially in this topic and context, is more harmful than missing information. When I get the time next week, and if this has not already been resolved, I will be doing a rewrite from scratch of the entire article, with Ukrainian involvement, and we can all have an actually productive discussion based on a version not written by a Kremlin propagandist. Fermiboson (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The page has already been significantly re-written since the start of the controversy. Do not remove well sourced material without first achieving talk page consensus. Section blanking without first achieving consensus will be reverted. Masebrock (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry but it’s not up to you to make that kind of a unilateral decision and this kind of belligerence and threats are just more examples of the WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. Volunteer Marek 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You're insisting that you have the right to blank sections of sourced material without consensus, and you're accusing me of "belligerence"? Masebrock (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:ONUS. And when there's consensus of nine editors vs two, this is nothing but belligerence and battleground from you. And WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now you're doing exact same thing at the Human rights in Ukraine article [216]. It's clear you're not going to stop. A preventive block is long overdue. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I was the person who started the original thread on this binfire (at least, the one that happened to explode). I will note that I have not looked in detail to the relevant edits by User:Masebrock and User:Gitz6666, mostly because I prefer to leave it to other editors with more time on their hands and experience in POV combatting to ANI them. I also don't have much to add regarding the content dispute that hasn't been said already. That said, from my point of view:

• I pointed out errors in sourcing, and others noticed more, to the point where nearly the entire article was made up of either unreliable sources oor misquotes of reliable sources;
• After fully realising the magnitude of the issue, I proposed WP:BOLD blanking the page, to which everyone present at the time agreed.
• Before I got to blanking the page, however, User:Volunteer Marek deleted and redirected the page. I expressed the sentiment that this may be overdoing it, as there are incidents of torture not related to the 2022 invasion, which the article was redirected to.
• This dumpster fire, which probably should have been brought to admin attention the moment someone reverted to the original article instead of at minimum stubbing the article, followed.

It is, therefore, clear that there is a consensus for nearly all of the original article being Russian propaganda.Fermiboson (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• With immediate effect Torture in Ukraine is indefinitely subject to WP:1RR per WP:ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is going around in circles

Clearly, everything that needs to be said has been said. I do not think this discussion can get us anywhere before an uninvolved admin starts moderating it (or else it would already have gotten somewhere). User: Masebrock and User:Gitz6666 are insisting that there is no consensus whereas User:Volunteer Marek and others I might have missed are insisting that there is, among other things. I have made clear that I agree with VM; however it is equally clear that nobody is going to convince the other party. Hence, I invite all relevant parties to summarise their points thus far in a paragraph or so below, to avoid extending the already ridiculous length of the wall of text above this post, and to make it convenient for intervening admins to make sense of the situation. Mine can be found in the post directly above this one. Moreover, may someone please get an uninvolved admin to weigh in. Fermiboson (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Masebrock

Thank you Fermiboson. I do not intend on responding to any of the other four main editors involved in order to keep this from spilling into more clutter. To me, this is primarily now an issue of user conduct:

• Volunteer Marek's conduct has been wildly uncivil [217] (he struck this afterward, but still). He is not assuming good faith [218][219][220]. He uses very minor problems with a text as an excuse to mass delete well-sourced material, such as in this example [221] where ten sources and >4,000 characters were deleted because he felt it was in the wrong section, and then seven sources again because of a grammar tense issue [222]. On a separate page, he again deleted sourced material because he felt it was in the wrong tense instead of making the easy fix:[223][224]. I would describe his behavior as plainly WP:TENDENTIOUS. On this noticeboard, he is currently saying that I should be topic banned or possibly site banned for making a quickly fixed mistake (thinking that a sentence referred to the 2014-2022 time-span instead of 2022) that I moved to correct as soon as it was brought to my attention [225]. (User:Gitz6666 beat me to the fix, which I thanked them for [226]).

• Elinruby has not been assuming good faith, and generally behaving on the talk page in an aggressive, unhelpful, and insulting manner [227][228][229] Their most significant contribution to the Torture in Ukraine page so far has been deleting material because the passage of time has now made it in an improper tense [230] (this was not as egregious as Volunteer Marek's deletions as some of this was also unsourced, but still a questionable practice) and unhelpfully adding a highly contentious unsourced claim about the state of pre-2014 Ukraine [231] that has since been removed.

In my opinion, these two editors are making it difficult to build this encyclopedia. Masebrock (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Such vitriol from someone I have never interacted with outside this article and perhaps not even there. I possibly have never before addressed them either. Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) is who I've been talking about. Well. Thank you for posting those diffs; that saves me a lot of time. Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The entire above thread speaks for itself

My primary contribution to the article has been to ask for help yesterday, actually. In my opinion. The obstruction and misrepresentation and personal attacks on display here are Exhibit A for the problem as I see it. What I most regret is not asking sooner. Had I realized that AfD criteria relate to the notability of the topic, not its content, I might instead have called for it to be blanked, then rewritten.

This was essentially the conclusion of the AfD: that the article as.it stood should be rewritten. However, since the result was keep, by disregarding that almost universal recommendation, other editors have been able to wave around a "failed RfD" flag, about which, btw, I could not care less. Next time I find a blatant propaganda piece that en.wikipedia has been hosting for seven years, I will know what remedy it is that I wish to seek. Above all, I will not use capital letters on hearing for the tenth or twelfth time that the "failed RfD" constituted consensus somehow for a "stable version" of a "decent and well-sourced article".

AGF is not a suicide pact. As a matter of fact I did apply it yesterday however, in thinking that WP:BLUE might apply to this article. This too was a mistake, actually; of *course* this was ammunition and fed the trolls, and of *course* the clarifying sentence was removed.

Let me step carefully around the content dispute that Masebrock (talk · contribs) has tried to bring here. Yes, Ukraine was a client state of Russia under Viktor Yanukovych, "a profoundly corrupt politician...seen as a proxy for Kremlin interests, and generally loyal to the idea of post-Soviet Ukraine as a Russian client state... Also, some guy named Barack Obama reached this conclusion, and he had some pretty good information sources available to him.

I am with Masem (talk · contribs) on this one: we should not have this article. At least not until somebody weeds out the deepfakes and until, for example, more information exists about whether the specific un-uniformed fighters in a specific incident were Ukrainian citizens fighting in the armed forces of Donbas, Russian recruits, Ukrainian Army personnel, Russia special forces, foreign irregulars in Ukrainian units, figments of Russian disinformation, starving looters or just plain criminals. I still don't think we should be analyzing YouTube videos either.

The topic is notable, that is true. If we absolutely must have the article, then in matters of content reality I have pretty consistently been agreeing with the other eight editors mentioned above.

It isn't clear to me whether discretionary standards applied to the article when this thread was opened here. Apparently not, or surely some sanctions would have applied by now (?) The past six months of Gitz' behaviour on Torture in Ukraine, Republics of Russia and War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the various and specious noticeboard posts he has made about them, have certainly posed a threat to *my* mental well-being, and I seriously doubt that I am alone in this.

TL;DR = Is this the right circus? Cultural reference: The monkeys are following *us* even though we don't want to argue with them, or should I say Energizer bunnies? I have stuff to do; please err on the side of truth, justice and the Wikipedia way. I will answer any questions directed to me, or provide diffs if asked, but if not, I do not plan to comment further. I don't dispute the diffs at all, btw, except to the extent that of course it would have been cooler to repeat myself in lower case letters. But possibly even more ineffective; there is a saying about insanity, after all. I think we are collectively here to speak the truth, no? Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Adoring nanny

When I came to the article, it looked like a Kremlin fantasy.[232] Cleaning this up should have been easy. It wasn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Above comments by User:Adoring nanny, User:Elinruby, and User:Fermiboson summarize the issue well. In addition to these 3 users mentioned above and myself there were 5 other users on talk who also agreed with us. The TL;DR version is:

"article was complete garbage, AfD said "keep but rewrite", nine editors on talk agreed to either make it into redirect or rewrite, but Masebrock and Gitz both started edit warring against any meaningful changes to the article, which included them restoring text which blatantly misrepresented and falsified what sources said"

In the course of this, Gitz6666 actually referred to the original version, the garbage one that almost everyone at Afd said needed to be rewritten as 'pretty decent' and 'a promising, reasonably sourced text', even though that version had literally false-sourced text in it. Masebrock tried to trivialize any concerns about neturality, made false excuses for their edit warring and just simply refused to listen. They both made false claims of consensus for their behavior (or yelled "no consensus!" to obstruct any meaningful changes) even though it really was 9 vs 2. They both misquoted policy, like WP:NOCONSENSUS to bully their way through on that article. Both of them reached levels of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that usually result in blocks. Masebrock is way past due for a topic ban if not an outright block, especially since they're continuing the exact same behavior at Human rights in Ukraine, [233]. Gitz6666 at the very least needs a warning and needs to step back and really reconsider what a "pretty decent" article actually looks like (hint: one that doesn't lie about what sources say). Volunteer Marek 16:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine

Now it moved to Human rights in Ukraine where reliably sourced content is being removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That page hasn't been edited by the above concerned parties in 12 hours. As long as a war doesn't spontaneously combust, we shouldn't need to act upon it, no? The discussion closed, let us allow everyone a chance to cooperate. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

oh, well, here we go again GabberFlasted (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

We need admins to give us clear procedural guidelines here. Volunteer Marek is continuing to massively remove long-standing and reliably sourced contents in the area of human rights protection in Ukraine. This is bound to result in edit wars, as editors with an interest in human rights protection cannot accept that this happens with no community discussion/scrutiny. Please share your views here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of removed content:[234][235][236][237] Again, Volunteer Marek deletes vast chunks of long-standing, stable content without seeking community consensus, and then claims "edit warring" when his bold revisions are reverted.Masebrock (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion. This is *especially* true if the material in question is misrepresenting sources. Having a citation to a reliable source is not enough - the text actually needs to be written in a way which factually reflects the source. This is kind of basic.

And one more time. I’m not the only one who is objecting to how this text is being inserted, in a manipulative fashion. At Torture in Ukraine article there’s now 10 editors basically agreeing with me here (vs 2, Masebrock and Gitz). At Human Rights article there’s also several editors agreeing (vs. 2, Masebrock and Gitz). … … … the problem here is Masebrock and Gitz and their inability to respect consensus or listen to others. That much has been made crystal clear in this discussion. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The material I have rewritten in 2016 [238] and which, I am sure, properly reflects reliable sources it cites was removed today. By you. Without any discussion. It is your responsibility to put it back first and then discuss at the talk page why you think it is not appropriate. It is not my responsibility to see consensus for inclusion of this material in 2022. And you perfectly know this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have applied WP:ACDS editing restrictions to this article. With immediate effect Human rights in Ukraine is indefinitely subject to WP:1RR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 29 November 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 disruption at Raghunath Mahato and Chuar Rebellion

These really do need more eyes. There's long term edit warring at the two articles regarding the role of a freedom fighter, with WP:OR and a recent history of sock puppetry. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• See explanation here [239]. Best of luck sorting through that WP:OR. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• The edit warring has been stopped. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, ToBeFree. While it's unlikely that the blocked account was related to Kingsman3 (talk · contribs) (though who knows?), it sure looked like an alternate of Rahul rajesh vai (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheating

I look through recent changes and I notice that edits to MATLAB show an anon adding test answers [240] and [241] [242] then removing test answers. Is there way to delete these edits so that dishonest students cannot use them to cheat? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as our problem (and they're probably going to get caught anyways because that's a dumb way to cheat). We should just block Special:Contributions/2001:1470:FFF0:1203:55DF:2543:C6F:7268/64 as WP:NOTHERE and move on. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a new one. Someone should tell them about pastebins. Frogging101 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it new? I am unconvinced that this is the first time. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The most famous exam cheating related incident is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Admin_misusing_viewdeleted :) —Kusma (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Really amusing. There are many other websites out there that they can use. Wikipedia is actually a really bad pastebin, and records are virtually permanent. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Godofwarfan333, copyvios, and civility

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Cullen328

• Godofwarfan333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please investigate this user on the grounds of disruptive and uncivilized behavior across the encyclopedia? Recently, they have been blocked over at Commons for repeated uploading of copyvios imagery, and just now have resumed the same behavior here on enwiki. Looking at their Talk page posts, they appear to be posting in an uncivil manner (see [243] [wth are you smoking] and [244] [...to see you act all sardonic about it is rather hilarious.] as an example). Maybe now is the time for an administrator intervention. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

oh shut up already Godofwarfan333 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

See also here just now. Seasider53 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

shut the fuck up and block me already you whanker Godofwarfan333 (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for personal attacks, copyright violations, edit warring and generally not being here to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Beyond this, just looking over this idjit's talk page, it is plain he has a terrible, highly combative attitude, and this is what, his third block in a fortnight? (Telling Daniel Case, of all people, "You're in big trouble now buddy" in response to his first block wins the Wikipedia Prize for Chutzpah for November 2022.) If there's any admin so crazed as to consider an unblock, this is one of the most worthy cban candidates in recent history. Ravenswing 10:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that was what prompted the response I was later persuaded to redact. Like C.Fred, I officiate high school sports, and that kind of response after a penalty/foul is always enough to get you kicked out of the game, whatever the sport, without any objection from the player's coach.

In that vein, I was thinking at the time that maybe I should have just revoked his talk page access for that, but I decided not to because to me that looked like a thin-skinned abuse of power. In retrospect maybe that would have spared us this outcome, that frankly to me seemed inevitable at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Inevitable, surely, but I don't think anyone can fault your prudence in not pulling the trigger yourself. Ravenswing 00:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained and unverified edits

I've kind of had it with User:WEEROR, who is making hundreds of small factual edits (related to politics, elections, etc.) to dozens of articles but without explaining what they are doing, and without adding proper verification. I asked them to leave edit summaries (in English, of course), twice, and their response was this: "I had done my edit, so there is no necessary to inform in edit summaries". A week later, after more of that, blocked them for that disruption, for 31 hours, and they seemed not to understand then why that was: "I think this decision is unfair to me, sometimes there is no time to update since the current suitation is too dynamic in Malaysia. If you want me to leave an edit summary, I will try my best, thanks." Well, yes, I wanted that, and they didn't.

Fast forward, and they still don't get it now. Their lack of edit summaries is obvious from their contributions, and here are the stats. They seem to not care about sourcing either, and I picked one at random from among many: this one, which adds election results from 2022, without a source, and there is no source already in the article that might contain that information. Here is another one--same problem. Go see for yourself: the verification is not there for these tons of edits.

I don't consider this a minor thing. We need to explain what we are doing, we need to make sure that the information is verified. I know there is a language issue here too, but explaining and verifying are just very basic things for our project. I am inclined to block again, but what I would rather see is this editor reformed--it is clear that whatever I was trying is not working. Your input is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"I will try my best?" No. Either accept the request to leave proper edit summaries or, well, wind up at ANI. This is not a difficult thing, and proper sourcing is not an optional thing. If this guy chronically cannot be bothered to do so, he can have an indefinite vacation until such time as he can. Ravenswing 00:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:69.127.80.35 threats on talk page of blocked user

Please look at the talk page, Special:Diff/1124513106, and consider whether or not the threats should be taken seriously and how they should be handled. Also note Category:Requests for unblock on UTRS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If they are serious about shooting at every editor's house, than they are going to spend at least 3.5 million US dollars on ammo alone, shooting 1 bullet at every house and using the cheapest ammunition available, like .22 LR in Bucket o' Bullets (about 8 cents per cartridge). Pretty huge spending for some blocked IP./lh a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 10:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

But anyway, they have retracted their threats. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 10:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

They're now asking on their talk page: "Can you please unblock me, considering I didn’t do anything block-worthy." That's pretty bold. They should be lucky we're not reporting this (obviously ridiculous) threat to the police. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Flagging User talk:Ուլտրաբոմբ‎

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 appears to be removing material and inserting unreliable material at Ashkenazi Jews. Andre🚐 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I did cite a reliable source: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jewish-q/about/results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That is just a user-submitted group page on a DNA testing site, and doesn't explain why you removed the content about the Khazar hypothesis being an anti-Semitic associated theory. Andre🚐 07:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not just a user-submitted group page. It's the Jewish Q DNA project. https://haplogroup.org/jewish-q-dna-project-weekly-news-3-july-2018/ The Khazar Hypothesis isn't an anti-Semitic associated theory. The people who say it is are just trying to discredit it. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The text you removed on the Khazar hypothesis was cited to academic and mainstream news sources. If you want to remove apparently well-cited text, you need to explain why, otherwise people will reasonably assume that your edit is not an improvement and are likely to simply revert you. (And justifying your edit by simply asserting that the apparently well-cited text you don't like is wrong without providing any explanation or evidence is unlikely to be persuasive!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Nothing is cited to mainstream news sources and I didn't remove the text cited to an academic source. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You did twice [245] [246] Andre🚐 20:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation 195 doesn't say that the Khazar Hypothesis is unsubstantiated by genetics. https://forward.com/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/. Citations 196 and 197 don't say that it's uncorroborated by historical sources and citation 198 is about a study that supports the Khazar Hypothesis!

The Khazar hypothesis is a known anti-Semitic theory: [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] Andre🚐 21:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Those citations aren't in the article! Did you look at citations 195-198? Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The article could be improved with better and more extensive citations, but you actually removed sourced material and added unreliable material to lend credence to an anti-Semitic theory. Andre🚐 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not an anti-Semitic theory. People who are afraid that the Khazar Hypothesis will weaken the Jewish claim to Israel in the eyes of the world just want people to think it is. But, politics and science don't mix. Read citation 198, an article about a study by an Israeli Jew. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There might be some legitimate proponents of the theory, but what you're doing is removing all discussion of the theory's usage by anti-Semites, which are supported by RS. Andre🚐 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation 195 doesn't say that the Khazar Hypothesis is unsubstantiated by genetics. https://forward.com/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/. Citations 196 and 197 don't say that it's uncorroborated by historical sources and citation 198 is about a study that supports the Khazar Hypothesis! I haven't got any opinion on the underlying content dispute, but this is the case you need to make when you remove apparently well-cited text from the article, rather than repeatedly making unexplained removals of content, as you did here and here. I note that Andrevan has now started a talkpage discussion, which is where you should be working out the content dispute. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I submit this user is here to push a POV and should be sanctioned per WP:CIR WP:RGW WP:NPOV WP:EDITWAR Andre🚐 23:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I submit the same about Andrevan. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh please. I am not making any changes or inserting material. Andre🚐 05:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Editors may want to check the page history as this user has refactored their own comment. Andre🚐 20:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• User has returned to and is persisting in removing information from the article.[254] Andre🚐 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• see user's message on my talk: [255] There was nothing wrong with my edits. I corrected mistakes in the article. If you undo my edits again, I'll report you. Andre🚐 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• User is now WP:FORUMSHOPping to WP:DRN. There isn't really a dispute. Just a POV pushing user making claims that aren't accurate about their own and others' editing. Andre🚐 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Suspected sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ultrabomb#Suspected_sockpuppets Andre🚐 07:24, 30 November 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.

Struggling to see why I shouldn't block an editor, at least from article space, that has been adding unsourced text for years

Latest was atUzzi, 3 days ago this. It's Blanche of King's Lynn (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 14:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm struggling too, but it might be worth seeing if the seriousness of the issue becomes apparent to Blanche of King's Lynn, now that it is at ANI? Just my 2¢ — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So far it would seem not. EEng 04:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

They've asked what edits I meant, I listed 3 in the last 5 days. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Their response on their talk page was argumentative and defensive. They then made an unreferenced, speculative edit to Neuruppin. Accordingly, I have blocked indefinitely, but the block can be lifted if they commit to adding only properly referenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Good block. Long overdue by the look of their talk page. This is not somebody who's interested in researching and writing about a subject, just in telling the world what they "know". The issues have been brought to their attention multiple times over the course of years and the response has always been the same. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That may be (I have not looked into the issues to judge for myself), but at the moment there is a fairly fulsome and sincere-seeming (if ever so slightly caveat-peppered) unblock request on their talk page. I've definitely seen worse unblock mea culpas, and if I was mop-enabled, I'd probably have already unblocked, considering the blocking admin's comments above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That this user's talk page access wasn't switched off earlier in Nov 2022 would appear to by a mistake on the part of Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am in the process of having a stern conversation with myself about this. In the interim, could someone please add the "Template:UTRS-unblock-user" UTRS unblock request thingy there? --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User not going to deletion review after AfD decision he didn't agree with

‎Kasper2006 (talk · contribs) has reverted twice [256] and [257] a redirect for Italian Winter Throwing Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that was an outcome of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Winter Throwing Championships. I advised Kasper2006 to take this to WP:DRV with this edit.LibStar (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

But of course I agree with a community decision. I reverted, and explained it, because the decision was a "mere mistake" since a vote against deletion and a vote for redirect could not have decided for the latter. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you believe it was a mistake, take it to deletion review.LibStar (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Lib, as I wrote in the revert, thank you for the advice but I don't know how to do it because I've never done it. I took a look and it seems complicated to me, if you give me some help we'll put the redirect back and go do it. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have put the redirect back. An alternative to using DRV might be to create a Draft:Italian_Winter_Throwing_Championships which doesn't have the problems that the original did (that it was basically a results listing with primary sources). Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about PeaceThruPramana26

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

---

So PeaceThruPramana26 has had quite an adventure in their 450-edit career with their current acount. They came to my attention after they tried several times to add a prominent mention of Jewish people into the lead section of the Middle Passage article. When I first noticed the edits I didn't pay them much attention but they were first reverted by GreenCows as undue weight (not to mention we don't add things to the lead section that aren't mention elsewhere or usually add refs to the lead), and I have reverted this editor several times. I'm concerned that this user might be a sockpuppet but I have no idea who they could be, or at least that they're not here for the right reasons; this was their eighth edit and bumping up a random thread (in which they were otherwise uninvolved) about The Daily Stormer,, an extreme far-right website, is also ... more than a little bizarre, especially for the earliest page of a user's contributions. They previously started a thread here that did not go in their favour, which involved among other things this over-reaction to a warning. I'm not sure that they're really here to contribute to an encyclopedia, but I obviously can't take action directly in this case. Graham87 10:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any LTAs to say whether or not this is a sockpuppet but I can put two-and-two together and say they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

So...you're just blatantly accusing me of being a sockpuppet for trying to add factual information into an article? That's quite an unusual step in harassment. Allow me to ignore that part since it's done in such poor faith.

Regarding the accusation on the article of the Middle Passage, there seems to take issue with the factual information I have added into an article. Since your article dispute has ended in an attempt at character assassination (including a thorough digging of my history, for lord knows what that could possibly mean) allow me to read you the source of what I have added into the article:

"It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there was also no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates."

I added the claim because to merely mention "Portuguese" and "Dutch" slave traders seems to miss the point that a good deal of them were Jewish, enough so that it warrants a noteworthy mention alongside those other nationalities as per factual information from a mainstream, scholarly source penned by Jonathan Scorsch, a professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth University, published by Cambridge University Press. You seem to take issue with him, so I suggest you save your insinuations for him and don't shoot the messenger, as literally nothing I said in my edit contradicts the information provided in the citation. If you have an issue with that edit--I suggest you take it there, as this is really not the place to do it, regardless of whatever opinion you have (which frankly, isn't that important).

Please save your poor-faith, baseless accusations for someone who actually deserves them, and I'm going to continue going on editing Wikipedia unabated seeing as I have broken no rules here.

(Good try, though) PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Addendum: can you explain what this comment in the edit history summary means?

"wow that's an awfully advanced thing for someone with an edit count of 450 to say ..."

PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You have twisted so many things out of context in your replies and quotations above that I very highly doubt you have enough competence to edit here. Searching the quote (which you had already provided) brought me to the page Jewish views on slavery and particularly the section on the Atlantic slave trade, which I hadn't read before, where your quote is given so much more context. Reading that text makes it abundantly clear that you are indeed not here to write an encyclopedia, only to promote an extreme right-wing agenda and antisemitic canards. (Honestly, I only wish I'd read more into this beforehand). It has become so abundantly obvious that you're not here for the right reasons that I'm going to indefblock you despite my involvement in this dispute, on the basis that any other administrator in possession of all the relevant facts would have come to the same conclusion. This post will serve as a permalink for the block. If any uninvolved admin wants to modify the block, they can do so without consulting me first. Graham87 09:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I support your block, I would have done it myself once going through stuff. Canterbury Tail talk 13:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing, User 27.125.165.16

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 27.125.165.16 has been making disruptive changes to aircraft and aircraft engine articles for the past two weeks. Four warnings have been given, has been reverted by at least three editors. Does not engage in conversation through their talk page or anywhere else, no edit summaries provided. Editing pattern includes edit warring, vandalism or incompetence (adding a non-existent image file path). No sign of heeding the warnings. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• 27.125.165.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Easy links for reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• The user is now adding invalid categories, as with [this edit. If they would respond to queries and/or ask for help, that would be one thing. But these sorts of edits are bordering on CIR. BilCat (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Continuing same pattern of disruption [258]. Please block. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  User has been blocked for one month through WP:AIV, this case can be archived. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:11, 30 November 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.

Problematic user SkyGeek123

SkyGeek123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor is a single purpose account which for the last several months has only edited Josh Cahill, at which it has added biased and promotional text and reverted any edit which improves the neutrality of the article, often with false claims of vandalism. Pretty sure we can all guess who is operating the account, although they have denied any connection. I wonder if they need to be prevented from editing that article, as their edits are not intended to be neutral or encyclopaedic. 185.104.136.21 (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

All statements are well sourced, 185.104.136.21 has been vandalising the article before and got blocked as a result. He can't explain his changes on the page either and continues to vandalise. He admitted that he doesn't like the individual and therefor continues to edit without providing explanation or changes without giving a single source. Admins approved the page numerous times before and warned 185.104.136.21 for his actions which resulted in a block. SkyGeek123 (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The IP isn't vandalising (as they said, you have a habit of making false claims of vandalism). You've been blocked previously for edit warring PoV into the article and not writing in a neutral manner. Before we go back down the edit warring route, I recommend you discuss the disputed edits on the talk page. — Czello 10:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you go through previous edits of 185.104.136.21, 86.187.163.51, 86.187.169.250, 62.30.195.57 (which are all the same person) you can clearly see that sourced sections have been removed. Reasons giving "rubbish" by which you can tell that he vandalises the article. Also the Award section was removed which was also clearly sourced and based on facts. If he provides sources or explains his reasoning in the talk page, as we tried with the individual in question, it would have been reasonable. But once again his lack of trying to engage shows his only motive. SkyGeek123 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF. A section being sourced doesn't immediately justify inclusion. The IP has given reasonable reasons for removal. Just because you disagree with them it doesn't make them vandalism. — Czello 11:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Even after that last post by Czello, SkyGeek123 is still referring to other people's edits as vandalism (they aren't). The previous block of SkyGeek for edit warring with the IP was to reinsert some pretty obvious puffery (which they were still trying to edit-war in after the block ended). And this, of course, is without considering the possible COI implications. My inclination would simply be to block SkyGeek123 from the article (leaving the talk page open for them). Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with Black Kite. I have instituted the page block. Skygeek123 is still free to edit all other pages at Wikipedia, as well as make suggestions at the article talk page. --Jayron32 16:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated case of overlinking

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

I doubt this user is here to build an encyclopedia if all they're here to do is repeatedly violate WP:OVERLINK, even as I've sent them multiple Talk messages not to do so. Can an administrator please step in on this case? Jalen Folf (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

He started editing today, you left him a generic warning today, and you're opening an ANI thread today??? EEng 23:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Clearly a WP:CIR case. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

EEng New blood joins this earth... and quickly he's subdued X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 04:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide whether I should invoke WP:EMERGENCY now. EEng 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we ought to notify the President. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Gunner555

Gunner555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is back after two years and has already resumed their anti-Iranian and anti-Armenian behaviour, violating WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:HARASSMENT and even WP:BLP. They have already been warned several times to refrain from attacking other users (eg [259] [260] [261]). They have already been blocked for personal attacks before [262] .

A history of this pattern (just some examples, doesnt include every diff):

1. 11 July 2017 Massagetae was not Iranian. This is pan-Iranist propoganda.
2. 11 July 2017 What kind of privileges you own? That you warn me with ill-intention? I edited Tomris page providing proper explanation as well as references. If you continue applying double standards towards my edits I will officially complain about your attitude. You seem to be heavily influenced by pan--Iranists. I demand reverting my edits, which were substantiated.
3. 11 July 2017 There is ill-intentioned Iranina progopanda trying to associate sakas, massagetaes and many other proto-turkic nations to Iran.
4. 23 August 2020 This is unfortunately another "persian cultural historical propoganda on Wikipedia".
5. 23 August 2020 The article is bombarded with claims of pro-persian users who do all to link Samanids to Iran and persians.
6. 26 August 2020 Do even ready my words? I said I opened new sections on pages and then got attacked by pro-persian users. Ready carefully. I add opinion (!) in Talk pages with questions, viewpoints and doubts. Then guys come up either reply with nationlist ungrounded ideas OR delete my section. And you do nothing about them. This means you are biased.
7. 23 August 2020 No room for persian chauvinism.
8. 16 October 2020 I fight rigged Wikipedia full of persian and armenian nationalists
9. 29 November 2022 Again you. You are deliberately fulfilling pan-persianist agenda on Wikipedia. It is crossing boundaries.
10. 29 November 2022 So, spreading the Iranist/Persianist agenda by calling historical people Persian/Iranian who wrote in Persian or lived close to it.
11. 29 November 2022 your problem is that you can't fathom historical facts. In your mind, everything must be Persian/Iranian in this region. You do only harm to Wikipedia.
12. 30 November 2022 - You bring references from naturally biased Armenian and Iranian authors about Azerbaijanian's identity? Why are Armenian and Iranian historians "naturally biased"? This was what he called the authors whose cited work were published by Iran and the Caucasus (Brill Publishers), Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Publishers) and Taylor & Francis.
13. 30 November 2022 HistoryofIran is very political on Wikipedia... ...It is clear that HistoryofIran relies on his administrative privilages only.

To no surprise, when I asked Gunner555 if they had proof for his persistent asperions/attacks towards me, he had none, not even a single diff. This was their reply; It is enough to look at changes, deletion, reporting of arguments that I have brought on here. Even your tone. They consider this constant mix of attacks, aspersions and hounding part of this platforms "free speech" [263].

Can we please indef this hateful anti-Iranian and anti-Armenian WP:NOTHERE user? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes we can. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • That was swift, thanks Drmies! I can hear my bed summoning me now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The bed or the refrigerator? It's making me snackish. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

      Might as well revoke Talk page access, as they're only using their unban requests to continue insisting they did nothing wrong and blaming "pan-persianist users making it personal." Keeping in mind that Gunner555 also insisted on their talk page, without irony, that Turkic people dont need to be Nationalists. Their history is already glorious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Garvit anand

Garvit anand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Omniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user has repeatedly added article-like content to the page Omniverse, a disambiguation page intended to distinguish different things named "Omniverse". This behavior continued after being told by Leschnei (talk · contribs) at their user talk on November 6 that disambiguation pages are not for article content.

1. Edits on October 9–10
2. Edits on October 30
3. Edit on November 2
4. Edit on November 5, with edit summary "I fixed the imagination of Illiterate people
5. Edit on November 7

The user has no other edits except for creating Draft:Omniverse, which has nearly identical content to the aforementioned edits. This probably would have been posted earlier, had the last revision not been reverted until today. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Stale. I remember this user. Anyway, they last edited 20 days ago and their total edits are in the single digits (9). So there's not much to do right now. Maybe something will happen, maybe not. Who can say. Cross that bridge, etc. El_C 10:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

An IP user 180.188.236.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) restored the same content to the dab page oon November 29: [264]. The first edit in the series has the edit summary: You guys need to read MCU books. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Two more reverts by Garvit anand on November 30: [265], [266]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 01:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Astronomical objects by source of name

A pair of weeks ago I started a discussion over a category tree, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 14#Astronomical objects by source of name (including the parent category and all the subcategories for "named after literature", "named after places", etc). The discussion has ended and the categories were deleted, but as I manually tagged them I forgot some that were deeper into the category tree. As you can see, the discussion applies to them too, and the only reason they were not listed was a mistake. The categories are:

• Category:Minor planets named from Roman mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Greek mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Egyptian mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Norse mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Japanese mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Celtic mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Inca mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Finnish mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Hawaiian mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Hindu mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Inuit mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Aztec mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Slavic mythology
• Category:Minor planets named from Arthurian legend

Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: (Non-administrator comment) I'd recommend opening a new CfD covering these pages. The precedent should carry over from last time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Shajure

• Shajure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deleting content from an article talk page and being threating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider53 (talk • contribs)
• I've blocked Shajure for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  As against that, in dealing with an editor who has at the top of his talk page "If you are an admin and feel an overwhelming urge to warn me about something, please proceed to block as I don't plan to change my behaviour. At all," I expect this will ratchet up to an indef soon enough. Ravenswing 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  In addition, "If you have some overwhelming urge to post here, please don't" and "If you are an annoying busybody (very common among heavy WP users, even very useful and effective ones), especially: STAY THE FLOCK OFF MY PAGE!" aren't terribly collegial or collaborative. This person's been editing for 12 years and has a little over 2,000 edits. I haven't looked at the quality of those contributions, but I can't imagine it would be any great loss if they were to some day run into a NOTHERE indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  a non-admin comment: I did look at Shajure's contributions, and while the editor may be somewhat grumpy, their edit-summaries are exemplary and I do think they'd be a loss. Also, the comment they removed from a talk page was far from an AGF edit on Seasider53's part. I get the distinct impression there are two sides to this argument. Maybe worth a more careful look? Elemimele (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  I suppose the "nonsense" part was a little strong on my part, but that was coming from my struggling to see beyond the odd wording the user was insisting on using in Fred Rogers' article (and my being emboldened by another editor validating my concern). I was fine with Shajure returning to the project after their time-out, but that was before their talk-page header diatribe was pointed out above. Seasider53 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump personal attacks and refuse to discuss

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

---

After making edits with a Bloomsbury published book, AndyTheGrump started reverting all of them and while we have continued to discuss them on talk pages like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paraphilia#Edit_warring_about_prevalence_of_paraphilias here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Dispute_resolution and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia, he has told me to "get lost" and "get a fucking clue" and now threatened me with ANI for "being incompetent" while saying he is done discussing it with me. A few hours ago he told me to wait some time and let others get involved in the discussion. User User:Hist9600 has seen his extreme behavior excluding users and refusing consensus.Foorgood (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue concerns edits like diff at Paraphilia and diff at Zoophilia. It appears that Foorgood is on a mission to tell the world that there are around eight million zoophiles in the United States. Please start an WP:RFC on the talk page of one article and thrash out the issue regarding whether a 70-year old source is usable and whether the claim is WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Andythegrump approves use of the Kinsey report but only for percentages not it's total estimate. I agree on going to RFC he's the one that made personal attacks, refused to discuss after saying "let's discuss" and threatened ANI.Foorgood (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I was uncivil. I suspect most people would be, given the complete and utter inability of Foorgood to understand that (amongst many, many other issues), Alfred Kinsey's research is over seventy years old, and has been the subject of considerable debate since, and accordingly Wikipedia should not be citing it as if it represents current understanding regarding the prevalence of zoophilia. Having failed to get their way on one article, Foorgood has resorted to spamming the same material, citing the same source, over multiple articles. A source which it soon became apparent that Foorgood hadn't even read properly. For reasons which Foorgood has entirely failed to explain, despite being asked multiple times, they seem to be utterly obsessed with citing a specific figure from this particular source - an estimated eight million zoophiles amongst the U.S. population - as if it was both authoritative, and current. It clearly isn't either. Kinsey's research is over seventy years old. And note that this isn't cited to Kinsey. It is cited to a source that Foorgood seems absolutely obsessed with using, after I pointed out that adding a link to what appears to be a copyright-violating link to a download of it in an edit summary [267] is inadvisable. If it weren't for the fact that Foorgood clearly hadn't read the source properly, and likewise clearly doesn't have a clue about the subject matter, I'd assume some sort of conflict of interest.

It should be noted that this thread has clearly been started in response to a post where I informed Foorgood that I myself intended to start a thread here in the next 24 hours, asking that they be topic-banned from all articles concerning human sexuality, on competence grounds. [268] Such a proposal clearly requires evidence though, and probably a cool head. Which is why I didn't start it immediately. I will provide the evidence when I'm able, but meanwhile, anyone who wants to know what this is about could read Foorgood's contribution history since 21:30, 30 November 2022. An endless going-round-in-circles exercise in pig-headedness, refusal to answer a simple question (why does a questionable seventy-year-old number matter so much?), and a litany of failures to give a reasoned response to my objections. This is a competence issue. A severe one. Quite possibly not adequately remedied through a topic ban, since Google-mining sources you don't understand is harmful to the project, regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Again personal attacks while he uses a double standard. He allows the Kinsey report for percentages but not for total estimates.Foorgood (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this like, the third AN/I report we've had of Andy in like a week? I would be pretty frustrated too if I kept getting dragged here. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 01:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

At what point do we set up community sanctions around people who complain about AtG at ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Some things are good ideas in theory and bad in practice. I think that's a bad idea in theory that would be very good in practice. casualdejekyll 03:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I think as a rule, anybody that decides to take AndyTheGrump to ANI should include their own name in the title of the thread rather than Andy's, since it seems that 999 times out of 1,000, it is their own conduct that comes under investigation.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion at Talk:History_of_zoophilia, I'm inclined to side with Andy here. Foorgood has repeatedly put words in Andy's mouth, ignored relevant questions about their editing, and displayed a general lack of sense about how to use sources. While there are some breaches of civility in the edit summaries in particular, if we're going to take issue with failure to discuss I see more of a problem with Foorgood not addressing why they want to include an outdated source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been the one to continue discussing NONSTOP while has said about 3 times that's it I'm done discussing this! Andy has allowed the percentages for the Kinsey source here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence but he is not allowing the total estimates.Foorgood (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You've been doing a lot of discussing, but it hasn't been useful discussion for the most part. My advice to you if you want this to end well for you is that you should pick one zoophilia-related article, and make a positive case for why your desired source and/or content is important to be included. If there's still disagreement after that, an RfC may be appropriate if it's not a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok i will do that but haven't me and Andy done alot of discussing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia. We're in desperate need of more people to comment.Foorgood (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions can be slow. I see a lot of active discussion just today, with Crossroads making pertinent points as well. Relax and take a step back from the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right thank you Foorgood (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For evidence that Foorgood's lack of competence extends beyond an inability to understand the context of Kinsey's research, see the second part of this edit, to the Paraphilia article. [269] Foorgood writes The American Psychiatric Association estimated that the prevalence of pedophilia among American males may be approximately 3 to 5 percent.. The source cited starts the paragraph being cited with an observation that Regarding pedophilia, the population is unknown. It goes on to quote from DSM-5, which said that "The highest possible prevalence for pedophilic disorder in the male population is approximately 3% to 5%" the authors of the work being cited then note that the basis for this assertion is unknown. Citing a source that argues that verifiable data is "unknown" for numbers on such data is absurd. More so when "approximately" is substituted for "highest possible prevalence" - that is simply, unarguably, wrong, since it is contrary to what the source actually says. Probably unintended, but further evidence of a lack of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Andy, welcome back to the ANI Cafe. Would you like your usual table? Drink? Amuse-bouche?

Foorgood, going through your very voluminous postings all over the place, arguing with practically everybody, being warned about it, and still doing it anyway, I'm forming a view that topic bans aren't likely to address a pattern of battleground conduct wherever you go. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

How can you say that when here Andy said "Go away and get a fucking clue"?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Dispute_resolution You ignore his history of doing this?! I just stated above I was going to proceed to request for comment Foorgood (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For context for that particular thread on my talk page, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Zoophilia. An abortive exercise in not reading the instructions prominently posted at the top of the noticeboard. I'd have to suggest that lack of clue was pretty well self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

But calling other editors "children" is quite alright? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I can say that after looking at your conduct at RSN and DRN, your behavior on Drmies and Æo's talkpages, your accusations of vandalism against editors who disagree with you, your advocacy of marginal or disputed sourcing across a broad range of topics even after other editors have explained why they are problematic ... I see a lot of wasted time, a lot of WP:IDHT, and a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND that has exasperated almost anybody you've interacted with. If I see you try to win discussions with "top publishing house source" again, I might use profanity too. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I acted uncivilized there myself I was warned and took ownership but I have refrained from making personal attacks against Andy when he cursed me out. I make sure to use top sources as is expected but I will pursue request for comment on this matter civily. If majority vote against my edit, I will accept it. Foorgood (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't do majority votes on edits here. This is ANI. Where we discuss behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I said that would occur at request for comment not here. Foorgood (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you said it in response to Acroterion's comments about your behaviour. Which from what has been said here seems to be a matter of concern regarding more than your differences with me. Such concerns are unlikely to be resolved by starting an RfC on one issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You acted "uncivilized" here [270] [271] on Æo's talkpage too, to the point of it being blockworthy. This behavior has been escalating over the past year. I am coming to the conclusion that you cannot collaboratively work on this project. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sir I have only had one or two incidents of uncivilized behavior amongst my thousands of edits working collaboratively with plenty of editors. Hasnt Andy been forgiven for the many uncivilized incidents he has had? Foorgood (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You've done almost nothing but bounce from noticeboard to talkpage for the last month across a variety of topics, demanding that you be agreed with, and treating those who won't with contempt. Almost every diff I check follows this pattern. I further note that Andy has not "refused to discuss". On the contrary, he's discussed extensively, with great patience, but has failed to agree with you. That seems to be the issue that's bothering you: nobody agrees with you, despite your demands that they do so. I strongly advise you to reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors, because it's not working. If you do not immediately alter your conduct, you can expect to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize and will not act uncivily again. Andy did say he's done discussing it with me but it is appropriate now to do a humble request for comment and then accept what the majority decides correct? Foorgood (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you fully disengage on all of these topics. Your conduct has been appalling. An RfC would be appropriate if there is no apparent consensus. This is not the case, consensus among a variety of experienced editors is clearly against you, when viewed across the spectrum of your recent activity. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

But there hasn't been enough editors in the talk pages to have consensus it's only been essentially me and Andy. Am I permitted to begin a simple request for comment without threat of block? Foorgood (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't get to negotiate or set conditions. Your conduct over the past month has been appalling, and if I had seen the totality of your conduct in the past month at the beginning of this thread, you'd already be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok it's just Rosguill above had told me to let discussion continue. I acted uncivilized with the AEO situation but the majority of editors agreed with me on the source 9 to 3 at the RFD we had on it. You will not see any more misbehavior from me! Foorgood (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you do misbehave, there will be no more warnings. You keep trying to pick out individual things, I'm looking at all of your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Block and redaction needed

User:67.84.79.89 and this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I redacted the comment. I will leave it to someone else to decide if they need to be blocked. So far they have made only two edits. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And blocked. They’re pursuing a racist theme. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I know that adminstrators are not supposed to block IPs indefinitely. But I do not understand why we do not block stone cold racists for much longer than 72 hours. I would have gone for two months in the hope that this despicable person would lose interest and go away forever. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

An IP address does not correlate to a person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of vandals of this kind are casual visitors who will find something else to do if they can’t come back the next day. That was the origin of the 31 hour block term. With the advent of edit filters it takes a little more determination to vandalize, so nowadays I usually go longer, but it’s still unusual for them to return. If they do, they’ll get blocked for a month or three. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Truly static IP addresses are rare and becoming more rare by the day. Wikipedia started establishing best practices around blocking IPs back when IPv4 with static IP addresses was the norm. That world doesn't exist anymore. Whether IPv4 or IPv6, assuming any IP address is "static" is currently not a good bet to make. You should always start with the default assumption that any IP you block will be a highly dynamic IP unless and until you have clear evidence that the same person is using it over a long period of time. --Jayron32 14:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Editor 212.243.61.50 Block needed

This editor is disruptive, edit warring and distruptive editing on the Yevgeni Ponasenkov, breaking WP:NPOV by trying to assert which is against consensus. Can somebody take a look. They've had multiple warnings. scope_creep^Talk 08:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

They have been edit warring and are now past the 3RR limit. I can't go any further in reverting. Can somebody take a look. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I posted a request for semi-protection, which will give the IP some cool-off time if granted. ValarianB (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: They're is other IP editors come in and change it. It been continual for months. scope_creep^Talk 03:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Dealing with consistent problematic IP edits in an article is usually done at WP:RFPP. I do however want to warn you to be cautious: it is very easy to disadvantage genuine non-disruptive IP contributors with semi-protection, so it must be used only in cases where the large majority of IP edits are disruptive. I'm not familiar with the disruption in question so I have no comment either way. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 03:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: Thats true, but here its the exact same edits that are made everytime by different editors. When the article was originally created there was a conversation to try an determine exactly what the subject was as he wasn't an academic. He claimed to be a historian but a WP:BEFORE couldn't find anything to verify that. The consensus was that he was writer and a publicist as he was on and off tv on a regular basis. That was the consensus. When an IP editor comes they change the text everytime to read that he is a historian and an expert on the Napoleonic period, as it was the first time around. The man obviously feels its important that he's seen as a expert historian, which is understandable. scope_creep^Talk 03:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

SPA apparently citing his own self-published works on Iran famines

Mohammad Gholi Majd is an Iranian author with a PhD in agricultural economics who has published several books on various Iranian famines through a print on demand model, including (among others) The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919 (2013), Iran Under Allied Occupation in World War II: The Bridge to Victory & a Land of Famine (2016), and A Victorian Holocaust: Iran in the Great Famine of 1869–1873 (2017). These books were published under the now-defunct University Press of America (UPA) label and its successor Hamilton Books, after "UPA was renamed Hamilton Books in 2017" according to Moretonian, a single-purpose account who claims to know intimate details about the publication process that only the author could know. Both UPA and Hamilton Books are nominally imprints of respected publisher Rowman & Littlefield that were expressly designed to allow authors to publish as soon as an order is made, without the editorial oversight or fact-checking of traditional publishing models.

• For example, an archived copy of UPA's website states: "Authors have come to appreciate UPA's ability to streamline the publishing process: Once the camera-ready copy is submitted and the pre-publication order has been placed, a UPA title is published within five months. ... The process of publishing a book—from the proposal stage to the finished product—doesn't have to be stressful and plagued with difficulty. UPA's streamlined program allows maximum freedom and flexibility, while ensuring that the finished product will be marketed to meet the specific needs of each title."
• Similarly, Rowman & Littlefield's website explains that "Hamilton Books publishes a wide variety of high-quality nonfiction titles for scholarly and general interest audiences using an innovative model that combines the best features of self-publishing (quick decision making, a higher level of author control over the content, swift publication process) with the benefit of publishing with an established publishing house that will typeset, print, and market your book. ... Hamilton reviews proposals and makes decisions within 3-4 weeks of receipt and publish new titles faster than most presses, usually 4-6 months after the author delivers a final manuscript and places the prepublication order."

To be clear, Majd's books make extraordinary WP:REDFLAG claims that Iran suffered more than any other country during World War I and World War II and suffered consecutive British-led genocides far surpassing the Holocaust, among other dubious assertions not found in any mainstream scholarship, often based on shaky numbers and selective use of primary sources. Academic experts who have paid any attention to Majd's writings have been almost uniformly critical.

• To give just one example, Willem Floor "appropriately relegates Mohammad Gholi Majd's overblown, conspiracy-filled book on the epidemic and the number of 8-10 million (or almost the country's entire population) given by him, to a footnote."

Unfortunately, Moretonian (whose top-edited article is Mohammad Gholi Majd and who has made no edits unrelated to Majd out of just 135 edits total) has rewritten the articles on the Persian famine of 1870–1872, the Persian famine of 1917–1919, and the Iranian famine of 1942–1943 to reflect Majd's WP:FRINGE viewpoint, either citing Majd directly or citing identical sources/making identical arguments to Majd. Moretonian is now continuing that behavior at Persian campaign (World War I), where it is very clear that Moretonian is simply republishing Majd's arguments in great detail.

• Moretonian (diff): "In a report entitled 'The Situation in Persia,' submitted by the Iranian delegation to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, dated December 6, 1920, the following is stated: 'At the beginning of the war of 1914-1918, the Persian Government, anxious to maintain its historic traditions, solemnly declared its neutrality ... Despite its neutrality, Persia has been a battlefield during the world cataclysm ... It is with deep emotion that we mention the the [sic] high figure of our loss in man-power—a cruel loss of 300,000 men, massacred by the sword of the invader.' The full report is given in U.S. diplomatic archives."
  • Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran. UPA (2013). Kindle Edition. Pages 2-3: "In a report submitted by the Iranian Delegation to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, dated December 6, 1920, the following is stated: 'At the beginning of the war of 1914-1918, the Persian Government, anxious to continue its historic traditions, solemnly declared its neutrality ... Despite her neutrality, Persia has been a battlefield during the world cataclysm. ... It is with deep emotion that we mention the high figure of our loss in man-power—a cruel loss of 300,000 men, massacred by the sword of the invader."
• Moretonian (diff): "Commenting on the devastation of Iran in World War I, Miroshnikov wrote: 'Looking back, even now it is difficult to say how Iran might have suffered less ... It was impossible to defend national sovereignty from encroachments by the Great Powers, each of whom considered Iran a prize in the struggle for new colonies and spheres of influence.'"
  • Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran. UPA (2013). Kindle Edition. Page 1: "Discussing the devastation of Iran, the Soviet historian Lev Miroshnikov wrote ... 'Looking back it is even now difficult to say how Iran might have suffered less ... It was impossible to defend national sovereignty from encroachments by the Great Powers, each of whom considered Iran a prize in the struggle for new colonies and spheres of influence.'"

I don't have the time to do this for all of Moretonian's edits, but the patten is clear: All of Moretonian's edits either cite Majd directly or they cite the same sources/make identical arguments to Majd. In one edit, Moretonian even accused Ervand Abrahamian (a leading historian of modern Iran) of making "false and defamatory claims against Majd," writing in wikivoice that "Abrahamian's accusation is completely false ... As noted above, Abrahamian's claim is completely baseless" with no sourcing whatsoever. Indeed, User talk:Moretonian has several messages asking about an apparent WP:COI, which Moretonian has thus far been unwilling to acknowledge. My question is two-fold:

• 1.) Is it possible to reach a consensus that Majd's books published through a print on demand model via UPA/Hamilton Books are generally unreliable?
• 2.) Can anything be done to prevent Moretonian, who—if we are being honest—obviously appears to have an affiliation with Majd, from making conflicted edits if he refuses to disclose the conflict?

I'm looking forward to any feedback from administrators about this sensitive matter. While I am willing to transpose the first part of this thread at WP:RSN if that is ultimately determined to be a more appropriate venue/not considered to be forum-shopping, in my view there are deeper behavioral concerns here about Moretonian's conduct that may rise to the level of requiring administrative attention. (Note that Moretonian received a 48-hour block for edit warring following an WP:AN3 complaint about one year ago but has since been largely successful in brute-forcing contested content into article space.) Thank you for reading,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor from article space for disruptive editing, including conflict of interest editing, persistent use of self-published, unreliable sources and POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation spam with a side of personal attacks

I know that there is a high bar to block for personal attacks or civility violations - but on my talk page, Ascertain2022 (talk · contribs) has been going a little beyond what I'm used to getting during my anti-spamming efforts. The talk page section is User_talk:MrOllie#Your wielding of the 'editor' scalpel willy-nilly is coming across as bizarrely hyper-maniacal. Please get help. So far I've been called 'hyper-maniacal', 'scattershot and trigger-happy', and told that 'Someone with a seemingly pathological hunger for collecting hundreds of thousands of Edits needs help - and you clearly do.' They've also included an external link to what looks like a reddit attack thread about me. This was kicked off after I reverted some edits using what is clearly a consultant's marketing blog as a source. (if you check the link it includes plenty of promotional text) They have kinda-sorta admitted to a COI here. Please let me know if I'm just being thin skinned or if some action is required here. MrOllie (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Refer to my replies on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie (Ascertain2022) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascertain2022 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for disruptive editing, which includes includes promotional editing, edit warring and personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Ascertain2022's current block is set for 3 hours – was that a misclick? DanCherek (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Indef? I see 3 hours. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Misclick corrected to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible sleeper account

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

---

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

This account was created in 2016 and made its first edit on March 13, only eight months ago. There are two problems here: (1) their username is not acceptable because of its violent nature and (2) all 157 of their edits have been to their sandbox, repeatedly and erasing content, which clearly shows they are WP:NOTHERE. Nythar (💬-🎃) 10:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

So basically someone isn’t bothering anybody or being disruptive, you haven’t tried to communicate with them at all, and you think it would be a good idea to have a thread about that on a drama board? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

100.36.106.199, this user should have been blocked for their username months ago. That's why I didn't bother communicating with them (they've already received a warning for their username in September and didn't even reply). Also, users who make hundreds of edits to their userspace (in this case, usually copy-pasting infoboxes) with no edits to the mainspace are usually WP:NOTHERE. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don’t you do something useful with your time? Go make breakfast, maybe? Knit a scarf? Maybe make a substantive edit to an article? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point, it's getting late. Anyway, I've presented the evidence; I'll just wait for an administrator's input. Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The IP user is trolling multiple ANI discussions, just ignore them. This was a valid issue to raise. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The editor appears to be using Wikipedia for alternative history nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reported at WP:UNFAA. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 16:24, 1 December 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.

Dynamic ip?

New to the dynamic ip part, but 76.66.104.156 looks like it is one if I'm not mistaken, yet it has two recent edits. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

IPs are allowed to make edits, if that is the concern. 166.205.97.48 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You removed two sources as being non-reliable, an IP restored them, so you followed WP:BRD so you removed them again and reported the IP to ANI. I think you're probably right about the sources, but this seems an over reaction. Is there some reason to be suspicious of the IP? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

User: Hee Leong

As requested, I am cross-posting this directly from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Najib Razak.

@Hee Leong: has been making extensive removals and overhauling content on the article for Najib Razak, without discussing it. They've also added some copyrighted content. @Hamba57: first brought this up on the talk page some time ago. This contributors major edits almost never include any edit descriptions. For instance: here and here. Some diffs were found to have included copyrighted content by @Diannaa: - see at the bottom of here. Some of the additions also violate WP:POV and WP:BLP - e.g. here. I have tried to ping the user on both the article talk page, their talk page and my own, but there has been no reciprocation to discuss this. I hope that someone else can intervene to avoid having to undo or monitor any ongoing efforts to overhaul this highly important and controversial article without any discussion. Thanks. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Self-reporting for COI check

I am self-reporting for a check on Conflict of Interest. I do research for the Polyvagal Institute, which is a non-profit foundation that facilitates peer-reviewed research and develops training related to Polyvagal Theory (PVT). I stated I was a researcher into PVT and a staff member at the Institute in an RfC I started on August 22, 2022. Talk:Polyvagal theory#Request for Comment: Polyvagal Theory. I did this to share with editors that I am an expert in the field, not because I think it constitutes a WP:COI. An academic dispute about PVT is spilling over to aggressive behavior on Wikipedia, including closing of an RfC I started by User: Hemiauchenia who stated I was an “obvious COI editor” and falsely asserted there had already been “obvious consensus” against a question in the RfC. The “obvious consensus” assertion has already been checked and found to be untrue in an Admin Help request. Talk:Polyvagal theory#RfC request inappropriately closed. But I was also asked to start a new discussion before starting a RfC (there have been two previous to the RfC which reached no resolution.)

Before I do this, it should be clarified whether I am just like any other Wikipedia editor, or if I need to abide by various COI rules.

The Polyvagal Institute did not originate Polyvagal Theory, nor does it have any ownership of it. PVT was first published in Psychophysiology, 32 in 1995, The Polyvagal Theory. The Wikipedia page about the theory was created in January 2008. The Institute was founded only in 2020. [272]. Clearly the page about the theory is not dependent or created by the Institute.

My role at the Institute is to facilitate and engage in scientifically-valid research, whatever the findings. The Institute’s staff and advisors include prominent tenured faculty members at leading universities.[273]. It is analogous in structure and model to independent institutes such as the Santa Fe Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis.

Nor is PVT a fringe theory. I think this incorrect belief by a couple of editors is influencing the aggressive behavior on the page and with me. PVT is entirely in the mainstream of academia, and its main critic is decidedly in the minority (despite misrepresentations to the contrary on the current Wikipedia page). According to Web of Science (one of the two acceptable science academia citation metrics databases, according to WP: Academic), (PVT) has been directly referenced in 448 published peer-reviewed articles and cited in 9553 peer-review journal articles. [274]. Google Scholar, which is not accurate for citation metrics since it unlike Web of Science includes non-peer reviewed results (but which anyone can check) shows 12,400 search results.[275] I can go on and on. One of the things that needs to be corrected in this article is the assertions that the theory is disputed in various academic textbooks when this is just flat out untrue. For example, the Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience is cited as not supporting Polyvagal theory when in fact an entire chapter of the textbook was written by the academic who originated the theory. (Look for Stephen Porges in the Table of Contents.)

There has been criticism in the peer-reviewed literature by one academic. His criticism mainly has to do with whether the theory is unique, or is actually subsumed in various other existing scientific theories; and whether various fine points of the theory can be explained by other phenomena. But the existence of criticism of a scientific theory is normal and expected in academic discourse. I don’t see why it should play any role in the decision as to whether I have a conflict of interest.

My interest is solely to see PVT correctly represented, and the criticism presented in an objective manner. I wish to mostly pursue this on Talk because of the disagreement between editors, but some direct edits are also needed. For example, I just added about 20 academic citations to sections of the article lacking any sourcing. Saying I have a COI here is like saying a researcher at the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis has a COI if they want to edit the Wikipedia page about Sigmund Freud. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You work at in institute with a vested interest in PVT, and are writing on Wikipedia about PVT. I would suggest sticking to making suggestion at the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP clearly has a WP:Conflict of interest which should be specified on their user page. I agree that they should not contribute directly to the article, but should instead make suggestions on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If one has to ask if one has a conflict of interest then almost by definition one has a conflict of interest. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It's common, and encouraged, for people to ask questions and seek advice about whether or not they have COIs; it doesn't mean that they do (or don't) have COIs; in my experience, the opposite is true: more often than not, when people ask whether they have a COI, they don't have one and are being overly cautious, whereas the people who violate COI ethics never ask. Levivich (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As a fellow academic working in a non-public-funded academic organisation, and similarly involved in public engagement, I'd err on the side of caution and consider myself having a COI on, at the very least, the main subject of my employer institution. Which I do: I've never edited on the subject because I couldn't edit without even the appearance of a conflict of interest, which would be detrimental to my employer in the long run. As an academic first and foremost, you'll agree with that I'd imagine.

If you feel you have to be involved, then rational and calm discussion on related talk pages, whilst not quick, will be better for you and your organisation, as well as for Wikipedia. That will mean that you don't always get what you want, and quite often you'll get people who don't understand that your contributions on a talk page are not only welcome and useful but entirely correct and to be encouraged. They can be told so too.

But for directly editing the article on your organisation's main subject...? Well, that would make me uncomfortable from an academic point of view, as it would if I were writing on any other professional venue. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything written above by Trey Maturin. Additionally, and I write this solely as a good-faith suggestion to help you with your future content suggestions at the article Talk page, you would do well to avoid long walls-of-text such as what you wrote above and also here, here, and here. Please see WP:WALLS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Heck, I've only created a single article -- and avoid editing articles generally -- in my professional field. Ravenswing 23:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. You do have a COI, which wouldn't be a problem if the topic wasn't controversial and you could write about it disinterestedly. But since it clearly is controversial, you probably shouldn't make any changes to the article, just stay on the Talk page, making your position clear. If you think the article is getting out of hand and veering towards inaccuracy or bias, you can always notify an admin. Deb (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that anything controversial should be discussed on Talk, regardless of COI. But as to the rest of the article, it is about a widely published scientific theory, not the Polyvagal Institute. I am an expert in this literature and can contribute to the article in a highly informed way. Saying I can't participate at all is like saying a member of the Department of Physics at a university should only use the Talk page for Quantum Physics because they have a "vested interest" in physics. An expert does not inherently have a COI about the topic they study. Ian Oelsner (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

A university physics department could probably survive if quantum physics was disproven or replaced by another theory. I do not think the same would be true of the Polyvagal Institute. Though I might be wrong, given that we're still talking about this theory even after a few decades of research have shown that Porges's ideas about the vagus nerve have not been born out by evidence. Also, for those reviewing, Ian's first edit added the text many of the world’s top writers and thinkers applaud it as a revolutionary theory [276] which should give you an idea of what their preferred article would look like. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sounds like a Wikipedian in residence at the institute, and WP:COI#Wikipedians in residence, reward board applies. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove libelous content from Digital Currency Group#Allegations of malfeasance

My company, Vested, has been libeled on the Wikipedia page for Digital Currency Group – more specifically, in the section Digital Currency Group#Allegations of malfeasance, first paragraph, by the following sentence: “But on September 15, 2022, the references to this essay were then deleted from this Wikipedia page as "libelous content" by someone who openly stated they worked for the public relations firm Vested, hired and paid by DCG itself.”

This statement, sourced only to the Talk page of this same Wikipedia article, is false on its face. After declaring my COI, I requested that libelous content be removed from the article on Talk Talk:Digital Currency Group#Request to remove libelous content and asked that the request be reviewed by independent editors, in strict accordance with the Wikipedia policy for paid and/or conflict of interest editors. WP:COI I did not directly edit the Wikipedia page for Digital Currency Group, nor did I remove any content from the article. Instead, User:Cullen328 made these deletions, presumably because they saw my request on the Talk page, although I can’t speak for them, in the Edit Summary they said it was “Speculation based on an obviously unreliable source”. [277] Looking at Cullen328’s user history, I see that they have been an active editor on Wikipedia since 2009. Vested has no connection to this editor.

The assertion on Wikipedia that our firm removes content about our clients from Wikipedia articles is false, highly damaging to our reputation, and may be very financially costly. We may lose clients because of this unless it is taken down immediately. I would ask that the self-sourced Wikipedia statements in the offending sentences be immediately removed, and that User:Asparagirl who added this claim be cautioned about their behavior in adding unsourced and false content to Wikipedia. Ideally, after this content is removed, it should also be permanently deleted from History. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the content sourced to a blog, a wikipedia article talk page, the wikipedia article's revision history, and tweets. It does not seem to meet the criteria for WP:REVDEL. I do think Asparagirl's use of these sources is questionableconcerning. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. From a quick look at the article history, it appears that the above is correct. The disputed content was removed by Cullen, and the citation to the article talk page was grossly misleading. I can think of very few circumstances where it would be appropriate to cite an article talk page, and this clearly wasn't one of them, for multiple reasons. I think we deserve an explanation from Asparagirl as to what she thought she was doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with the removal. Asparagirl's addition was inaccurate, poorly sourced, and not appropriate in any way. Thanks for reporting, CertifiedTurtle, and for diligently adhering to the COI guidelines. DanCherek (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

CertifiedTurtle is correct that I removed that content and made that edit summary. The content was referenced to a blog post hosted on Medium.com, which is not a reliable source. I have no conflict of interest whatseover in this company or any other company in the cryptocurrency/blockchain industry, and have never invested a penny in any of them. It is absurd and contrary to the WP:CIRCULAR section of Verifiability that a Wikipedia article talk page is being used as a reference in this Wikipedia article. I encourage any uninvolved editor to help clean up this ugly mess. I do not want to get accused of involvement in a cover-up. I am in the midst of dealing with a medical crisis in my family right now. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Stubbornly not using edit summaries

JesusWins777 (talk · contribs) does not use edit summaries despite [278]. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI just look at the % of their edits that have summaries. Sheep (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

See [279]: they were warned at least four times to use edit summaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked Given that Doug Weller left a pretty clear ultimatum, and the user ignored it, I blocked them pending a statement that they intend to fix their behavior. --Jayron32 13:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that it's good form to use edit summaries, but has there ever been any RfC or similar consensus that failing to use edit summaries results in a block? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not using edit summaries is not their only serial mistake. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Right. One can imagine an account that simply went around fixing typos and not leaving summaries that would not be disruptive, but lack of summaries can, in some instances, become disruptive in and of itself. Or so I believe! Happy Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's true, but it's also not why they were blocked. I'm just curious how often this sort of block happens. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, I only report users for reasons which are IMHO serious. I do not fill frivolous requests. I only report users which IMHO do not improve Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a blockable offense, and it isn't possible to list every single way someone may be disruptive. Wikipedia:Editing policy does say that people should explain their edits and use edit summaries. People who forget from time to time, or don't use them for very minor changes, or at least acknowledge that yes, they forgot these last few times but are really trying to be better about it, well those people are not blocked. However, when a user is reminded about following best practices time and time again, and not only forgets, but deliberately refuses to abide by them in an active way; well that's disruptive and can be met with a block. No, we don't instablock someone the first time the forget to use an edit summary. But after a prolonged period of flaunting Wikipedia's best practices, and then being told to stop or you'll be blocked, well they were given the chance. They did not. I should note that in my block notice, all I require is an acknowledgement that the user recognizes that they are supposed to use edit summaries and an assurance that they will do so when unblocked. I don't even need to be the one to unblock; ANY admin who is satisfied with such an assurance can unblock them, without even checking with me. Among blocks, this is the easiest to get out of. --Jayron32 19:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, thank you. This pretty much answers my question. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) The username doesn't exactly suggest impartiality in all areas. Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Today I learned that 777 has religious significance. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Bayarkhuu Enkhtaivan Orluud Mongol

User:Bayarkhuu Enkhtaivan Orluud Mongol has made a series of vandalistic and unsourced/disruptive edits. An example is their edit 1125412648 to Mongolia, which among other things added the unsourced claim that "Mongolia and China have always been at war since the beginning of the Asian state until now". I asked them to stop adding unsourced information at User talk:Bayarkhuu Enkhtaivan Orluud Mongol, and instead of responding, they added the unsourced information back to the page in edit 1125530352 to Mongolia.

Their edit history appears to be solely vandalism and unsourced additions and other editors have also asked them to stop at User talk:Bayarkhuu Enkhtaivan Orluud Mongol, but their only engagement has been to reject the feedback and insist that Wikipedia's current content is a "blatant lie". They've also been blocked before. I wasn't involved in any of the prior incidents but looked through the evidence from the links on their talk page and contributions. modargo (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

They’ve now added a legal threat to their talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:845D:4785:F15F:7F46 (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and hostility by Uinko

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 reported this a couple of weeks ago, but it was closed, in my opinion, far too quickly. Since then, the user has made dozens more edits, the overwhelming majority of which contain problems that I and other observers have already brought up with them numerous times.

Here are just a few of their recent disruptive and ungrammatical edits: This one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.

Furthermore, in the following edits, Uinko removed content without giving an explanation. here, here, here, and here.

There are countless instances of this, and they comprise the overwhelming majority of Uinko’s contributions. This user tends to make a large number of small edits to each article at a time, which has helped to mask the cumulative damage being done, but the result has been that entire paragraphs have been stripped of information and replaced with awkward prose that badly needs to be copy-edited.

Uinko has been notified of this repeatedly, more than a dozen times, and I invite you to look over their talkpage to see how many times they have been reminded of this and offered guidance, only to either ignore it or respond with undisguised hostility, and even personal attacks on a few occasions. As such, Uinko is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and should receive a formal warning from an admin or lose editing privileges. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Cpotisch, I reviewed all those "here and here and here" edits that you linked to. Frankly, they might not be the best edits but I do not see them as so terrible that this editor really needs to be dragged here to ANI. Your examples fall far short of showing that entire paragraphs have been stripped of information and replaced with awkward prose that badly needs to be copy-edited. Perhaps you should have selected more informative diffs, or perhaps the problems are not as serious as you are claiming. Which is it? Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll review the diffs again and see if there are many better examples of what I was talking about, and will review the ones I linked to. I was pretty sure that all the ones that I claimed had grammar issues did, but it's obviously possible I misread. Again, as I noted, I am far from the first person to take issue with their edits, so it's plausible that my own perception was clouded by that track record. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Cullen, and "ungrammatical" is just not correct, not for all of them anyway. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have gone through the diffs that the OP provided. I can find nothing objectionable with any of them. Sure, there may be some good faith disagreement over the best way to organize information, whether to combine two sentences into one, or to use a proper name rather than a pronoun, the entire set of "this one, this one" links provided by the OP is stuff like that. Maybe the edits improved the readability, or maybe they didn't, but it isn't clear cut and is going to be a matter of opinion. That's NOT a reason to report someone to ANI to demand sanctions. Secondly, the "here", "here" removals are not a problem. Every one of those was uncited, which can be removed by anyone, at any time, for no reason at all other than they were statements of fact that lacked any clear source. Also several of them were bordering on trivial, which even if they had sources doesn't mean it is wrong to remove them. Other than the minor issue of not using edit summaries; which isn't strictly something blockable given that all of these removals are obviously and unambiguously within guidelines and policies, isn't an issue for me. At best a gentle reminder for Uinko to use edit summaries would be in order. On the charge of personal attacks, the OP has provided no diffs regarding that. I make no statement in that regard; however NONE of the diffs they provided account for ANY reason to sanction or even warn Uinko for anything. --Jayron32 13:26, 30 November 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:Einahr

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

this user edited other users' user pages, such as User:IIgnacio, without permission. RZuo (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry RZuo (talk · contribs) for not getting permission to you. — Einahr (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Justapedia: the stolen encyclopedia

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.

---

}}

Angry fork

I am uncertain about where the best place is to alert the community about Justapedia. Basically it is a proposed online encyclopedia being marketed as "the neutral and objective encyclopedia that Wikipedia should have been".

Unlike other collaborative online encyclopedias that were founded to combat perceived biases on Wikipedia, such as Conservapedia, Justapedia has opted not to build their encyclopedia from the ground up with contributions from their community. Instead they have downloaded the entirety of English Wikipedia and intend to market it as their own. Just go to their test page and start searching. They have even plagiarised the majority of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are currently working through "their" encyclopedia converting all mentions of "Wikipedia" / "WP" to "Justapedia" / "JP" and otherwise readying their encyclopedia for launch.

Where their project starts to diverge from Wikipedia appears to be American politics and administration. In terms of content, the overwhelming majority remains what contributors to English Wikipedia have made. But, they are removing critical commentary of conservative US political figures [280] and engaging in some far-right historical revisionism, for example claiming Nazism is a left wing ideology that is comparable to contemporary US Democratic Party ideologies [281][282][283]. In terms of project administration, they seem unhappy with community consensus and instead intend to retain complete control through a Politburo-like "Board of Representatives", while all editorial decisions will be enforced by a number political commissar-like appointees to the "Editorial Board", see here.

The entire endeavour appears to have been launched by several active Wikipedia editors, this user page provides some insights. They have even started their own foundation and of course an associated fundraising campaign, a promotional video has been uploaded to YouTube (just search Justapedia) and it is being marketed on social media. Apparently the Earthwave Society is sponsoring them for now [284]. It appears the same person founded both organisations, based on this comment I assume they are Justapedia editor User:Justme.

How does the community feel about a number of Wikipedians attempting to profit from the years of hard work of the community? If successful their foundation will no doubt need to pay its executives/board members, and even if any money raised never lines their own pockets one can guess from the diffs above what causes it would likely be funnelled (or laundered) towards. 212.140.138.218 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, our licensing allows them to do that. As you note this is hardly the first time this has happened.

Frankly my response to this is basically "So?" and I doubt I would be alone. Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The WP:Village Pump would maybe be a better place for this discussion. But as Daniel says above, allowing for forks is sort of the whole point of a free encyclopedia. Jahaza (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not currently attributing in compliance with the CC BY-SA, so, they should do that if they don't want to get DMCA'd by some Wikipedian with too much time on xyr hands. But there's nothing really to be done here by a user-conduct perspective, even if there are Wikipedians involved in this project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about this at all, and in fact I believe they'll fall into the same hole Conservapedia did - Nobody is going to want to contribute to a website which wears its biases on its sleeve except for those who're committed to either that ideology or taking the piss out of the people who oppose it. "Owning the libs" is not a sound plan for running a website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Prediction: This project will fail. If it draws far right POV pushers away from Wikipedia, that would be a beneficial result, but even that is unlikely. Such people yearn for the audience that only our top ten website can provide. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

As other commenters have said, it's not really a problem for us unless they're breaking the terms of WP's licensing. MiasmaEternal☎ 08:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Reusing the contents of Wikipedia is better described as a fork and a compliment than as "theft" (WP:Reusing Wikipedia content), but I am disturbed that I don't find attribution of any but the last contribution to each article (the articles are at the "test." prefix). Nor do I see any general statement that the source of their articles is Wikipedia, although they still seem to be writing their basic documentation and I may just have looked too soon. However, that does violate all our copyrights. I'm also not as unimpressed as the OP by the changes being made; this first example edit to their version of Nazism strikes me as as much confused as doctrinaire. As to the basic act of forking the entirety of the encyclopedia, I can hardly condemn it; I believe we should have done so years ago. But their insistence on registration rules me right out given who's evidently in charge, and I do share the OP's concern about the mode of governance they've chosen, though "Politburo" is a bit much. To each their own, but we should demand credit. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The nazism page on justapedia currently says “hitler did everything wrong” and they have yet to catch on to this, this presents a window into the future of this endeavour of theirs. 2605:8D80:608:577E:B023:C798:893D:BF50 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That was vandalism by Assholea[285]. Fascism is described as far-right in the current version. User:Atsme do you want to contribute to this discussion? Doug Weller talk 11:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh. The degree to which we make a fuss over this joke of a fork will be the degree to which the Streisand effect is invoked. Ravenswing 09:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• I personally love the idea that they think we are fundamentally flawed, with the logical solution being to copy 6 million articles from us Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Good luck to them. The more they're wasting their time over there, the less they're disrupting over here. Canterbury Tail talk 14:04, 3 December 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:Mljavier

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

this user vandalize mamy times like Quezon's 3rd congressional district he/she vandalize it. — Einahr (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since November 8.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Osudb98

Osudb98 (talk · contribs)

After this user added absolutely degrading information to Phillip Adams (American football) (which I then redacted), they then posted this message on their talk page after my warning [286]. Their other few edits show no sign of being here or working collaporatively. I'd block indef but I'm involved. Masem (t) 14:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Just as a general note -- granted, the warning template's phrased the way it's phrased -- a dead person can't be legally (in most Western jurisdictions, anyway) "defamed" or libeled. You're the judge of whether Osudb's additions were encyclopedic or seemly, and his outburst is absolutely indef-worthy, but I thought I'd get that out there. Ravenswing 14:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP still applies after death, anywhere from 6 months to 2 years, depending. Given the situation around Adams (where no RSes cataloged him as a murderer due to the mental health issues that were involved), this is where BLP would still apply. Masem (t) 14:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed without TPA. I've also rev/deleted Osbud98's post to their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Any point in revdelling this on general principles? — Trey Maturin has spoken 15:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't normally delete edits on "general principles", but the edit is deletable under RD2 (serious BLP violation), and I have done so. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

IAskWhatIsTrue

I just cannot hold it any longer. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 48h for making personal attacks, I tried to make polite advice on their talk page about how to do. But they started trolling me about COI without any evidence. And repeatedly making unblock request. Lemonaka (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked by Primefac, okay. Lemonaka (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• It is possible that the 48 hour block may allow the editor to calm down, though I am not hopeful. I suggest this be closed, and only reopened as a new thread if truly necessary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: FWIW, I have found that when I am annoyed by things someone is writing on their individual talk-page, a good way to improve the situation has been to take it off my watchlist. JBL (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User unnecessarily promoting a town in every single geographic article of the state

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Black Kite

User User:Upendrapai is spamming all the geographical articles all over State of Karnataka with Sirsi, Karnataka. Unnecessarily promoting a specific town even though the articles doesn't need them. Administrators are not taking any action against this user which proves biases in favour of confirmed users. Here are few articles which he changed.

• Kumta
• Mundgod
• Yellapur
• Gokarna
• Murdeshwar

He generally targets popular destinations/towns to promote his town (Sirsi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.195.135 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Worse, they're changing the areas and populations of other places, presumbly to make them smaller than Sirsi (i.e. [287], [288]). These edits are simply deliberately introducing misinformation. Therefore, I have blocked the editor indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring across the platform on historical Ottoman articles

• Kamer2507 (talk · contribs)
• Sira Aspera (talk · contribs)
• Um, what's going on here? Looks like a couple of editors who follow one another around and revert....over and over. At a glance, I can't yet discern if one party has a better foothold, but this is ridiculous, and more than a little disruptive. We could really use more eyes and intervention. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

24.218.189.104

IP user 24.218.189.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) commented numerous and rude requests in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review, forcing users to make images and one time even set deadline. I gave the advice on the talk page and this user agreed "no more non-constructive edits", but quickly repeated. This user is fundamentally unaware of what is bothering them and needs to be blocked at least for a while to make them understood. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Despite mentioning this discussion on the talk page, they again made an unnecessary request same as previously did.[289] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with this, they are being an extreme nuisance making unreasonable requests, having the audacity to demand deadlines for requests they have made [290]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from that project page, and written a homily on the use of the conditional tense in polite society. Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

2600:4040:aa6d:1200:7819:2513:e4cd:bba0

2600:4040:aa6d:1200:7819:2513:e4cd:bba0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come off a block for adding unsourced content to BLPs - and is now back doing the same. They had also blocked evaded to do the same as 2600:4040:AA6D:1200:1D4B:F7B:3E5E:367E (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can somebody please review? GiantSnowman 08:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, their edits haven't been reverted in over a day. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for ban on user Roxy the dog

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 is a proposal for ban on the user User:Roxy the dog, submitted by Zekerocks11.

The user Roxy the dog is a longtime editor of Wikipedia. Their first edit was on January 15, 2008. This user has contributed to lots of projects. Unfortunately, this user has some issues regarding their editing around other users.

• Early instances of this behaviour began on the 26 of September, 2013.This is one example of harassment and personal attacks. In this incident, multiple editors got in an edit war (including Roxy the dog) over the first sentence in the article being edited by User Canoe1967. In the 3 instances the user edited the article ([291] [292] [293]) the edit history shows them clearly being short with the editor and being a bit rude, stating the following. "it looked so bad." "The same wikilink twice in the same paragraph? not needed." and "Please read the paragraph more carefully, perhaps three sentences further." As this behaviour may not constitute clear punishment, there is hundreds more of instances of this short temper and foolish behaviour happening.
• Early instances of this behaviour that are obvious to me began on the 7 of December, 2013. Roxy has had multiple, multiple edits become BLP issues (I will get to more of that at the ArbCom case of 2022). This instance is one of the first of those BLP issues. I will ask you to please read the warning by user User:Callanecc on this case: [294]
• Over the next year, a few more issues will arise, but I am not going to mention them in this report or it may become unnecessarily lengthy. We will be skipping ahead to the 12 of November, 2014.
• On the 12 of November, 2014, user Roxy the dog received their first block by user John for 24 hours, for "Personal attacks or harassment". This block was viewed as controversial. John was accused of abusing his admin privileges and not assuming faith, and instead of Roxy simply taking the 24 hour hit, they decided to instead exercise their right of submitting an appeal. I am unsure if the appeal did end up going through, but I am sure that John ended up getting told off for this block. A link to this on Roxy's talk page is here: [5]. Feel free to have your own opinion on this take, as it doesn't really matter the outcome either way.
• As we skip ahead another 2 1/2 years, we get taken to the 7 of May, 2017. On this day, Roxy receives a 31 hour block for "Personal attacks or harassment" by user Ivanvector. In my opinion, this is a "Oh boy, this is a real doozy" moment here. Follow along with me while I type this here: [295]. So from what I can take from this, there was a previous conflict with Roxy and this admin. I do not know where, but based on the talk page, there was one. This admin blocked an editor for calling someone a "prick" which I believe is a valid block in that scenario. A simple choice giving the editor a chance to cool down. However, Roxy makes up their mind and decides its okay to then call Ivanvector a "prick" for blocking the other editor, in which Roxy then receives the 31 hour block. I believe Ivan is irritated at this point and started being a bit hot headed and short tempered. At this point, I am going to be listing all of the other blocks for convenience in a list below, up until 8 of January, 2022.
  • 4 of April, 2018 John blocked Roxy per Arbitration enforcement, but ended up getting unblocked as the block was not valid
  • On 21 of September, 2018, user Boing! said Zebedee blocked Roxy for 24 hours for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy", 5 hours later lengthened the punishment to 1 week, but then reverted it back to 24 hours based on the discussion held on the talk page.
  • On 20 of November, 2018, user Sandstein blocked Roxy for 1 week for "Disruptive editing at Fiber rope", but the block was removed 2 days later as the "Concern for which the block was made is no longer present"
  • On 13 of February, 2020, user Ivanvector blocked Roxy for 24 hours for "Edit Warring"
  • On 2 of January, 2021, user DGG blocked Roxy from user RAJIVVASUDEV's talk page for one week for "continuing an interpersonal dispute"
  • On the 8 of January, 2022, user Bradv blocked Roxy for two weeks for "Edit Warring"
• And that brings us to where I wanted to stop for now. Instead, I would like to direct your attention to the ArbCom case that opened on 16 of January, 2022. If you would like to read through this case, please feel free, but I will touch on the general consensus for the outcome of the case here. Link to the case. The overall outcome of this case for Roxy was the following warning: "Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others."
• Now, before going to the present, I am going to mention going to the current version of Roxy's talk page. Please read through it, as you will be able to see countless more instances of Roxy being short to editors, biting newcomers, ect. [296]
• Now that brings us to the present. On the 3 of December, 2022, Roxy was banned for 1 month by SilkTork per the ArbCom case (which was shortened to 24 hours an hour later by Bishonen). This case is still very much on-going, so I will explain what I know of it currently, in detail, up to this point. The new administrators policy addition to activity is causing an influx in administrators resigning this month. Roxy went on the talk page for administrators resigning, and decided to comment some toxic things to an administrator resigning. I am not going to state what they were, if you would like to review it yourself, please feel free to check the logs. SilkTork decided to respond to this with a month ban, which was then viewed down upon and shortened to 24 hours. I personally disagree with the shorten. As of now, Roxy is currently banned for harassment.

And that pretty much wraps up this report for now. I do have a few requests for the handling of this report though, which I will be listing below. Please ensure that you read the requests that I am placing below, as this will need administrator approval.

1. I would like fellow editors were free to give their opinions on this proposal, and ask questions as necessary.
2. I would like fellow editors to please reply with their stance on this proposal. If editors agree with the proposal of ban, please reply to this stating that you agree with the proposal in bold. Please also choose the length at which you believe Roxy should be blocked out of the following: Indefinitely, 1 year, 6 months, 3 months, 1 month, or any longer amount of time you wish to state.
3. I would like Roxy to have a bypass to this page during her block to allow them to state their stance on this proposal, and allow them the right to defend themselves as they see fit.
4. After 1 week, I would like the proposal to be closed, and the ballot of votes of supporters and opposers to be counted, as well as the amount of time to be banned counted.

Note to Admin: I am aware that this is an unusual scenario, but I must ask of you to approve these requests, as I would like the community of Wikipedia to vote on this ban, and allow them the right to share their feedback and go through the following reference material I have provided. You are free to deny my request, and take matters into your own hands. Best, Zeke (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That isn't how WP:ANI works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I asked another administrator about it and said to come to ANI about it. If you have anywhere I should go with it, then please state where. I would prefer that this is how this case is handled. Best, Zeke (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt very much an admin suggested you came here asking for a 'ballot' over this. While ANI discussions can vary a great deal, those concerning proposals to ban long-term editors generally involve the presentation of evidence (i.e. diffs), followed by an evolving discussion involving multiple contributors. You seem to be pre-empting open-ended discussion . AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is where I asked. I honestly would prefer an open-ended discussion on the topic with people presenting their opinions on what I have stated and with what evidenced I've given. Best, Zeke (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the evidence you have given is that it seems to be long on things that happened some time ago, for which Roxy has already been sanctioned, and short on evidence (i.e. diffs) concerning anything new which would merit a ban. What is it that you think specifically justifies acting now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, based on the last year, I believe that Roxy has not been punished nearly enough for their actions overall. Most things they were banned for was later removed. At this point assuming good faith on their edits is out of the picture, and the fact that their punishments keep getting lowered instead of facing higher punishment is what concerns me the most. It's almost like we're working backwards instead of forwards. I think there is a lot of things that went unpunished the last 14 years. Best, Zeke (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I asked for diffs. Evidence other people can form an opinion on. Not your personal opinion on the matter, followed by speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Re "I believe that Roxy has not been punished nearly enough": setting aside any particular editor, this exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sanctions, including blocks and bans. They are not intended to punish anyone. Punishment is for other authorities. Their purpose is to protect the encyclopedia. The question should not be: has someone been punished enough? The question should be: are they a net benefit to the encyclopedia, could they be a benefit if their efforts were redirected in some way, or is there no possibility of getting a positive contribution from them? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess my wording and thought process of that came off as not appropriate. The user is not benefiting to the Wikipedia if they are constantly biting the newcomers and making smartass remarks. [297] this was never mentioned at all during the ban process. Edit comment stated "ALSO> basic spelling error - perhaps the result of homeschooling". This was from today. I do not want to spend hours of my time finding everything that went un-accounted for, but at the same time, whatever pleases people to a point where they think there's enough evidence to prove my point is my goal. My goal out of all of this is to prove that this user is not suitable to be on Wikipedia if they are going after people all the time. Best, Zeke (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• You lost me at "mental capacity capability for editing." Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I said mental capability not capacity, Acro Best, Zeke (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't make it better at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  What was I supposed to say? Best, Zeke (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, this user has some issues regarding their editing around other users. Perfectly comprehensible sentence, means basically exactly the same thing, but doesn't speculate negative on the mental capabilities of other editors. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I changed it to state what you said. Didn't mean to come off as speculating on the negative, apologies. Best, Zeke (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone says incivility drives off editors, but Roxy's incivility recruited an editor, so maybe we've been going about it wrong this whole time. Levivich (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Approachable tone, conversational writing style, overall a weirdly engaging piece—would rank high if it didn't fundamentally misunderstand ANI. Oh well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean I guess I knew it didn't follow ANI, moreso looking for community feedback instead of just admins getting to chose the outcome Best, Zeke (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A wholesale rejection of admins as representatives of the community? Even more engaging! Sadly though, ANI is still not the right place for this discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey now admins were free to give their opinions too, just wanted everybody to have a valid say in it. Either way, at this point the ship has sailed that my idea did not work lol. Guess I'll have to suggest this as an actual idea at some point Best, Zeke (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

One wonders about the wisdom of seeking primarily non-administrator input at the dedicated administrator's noticeboard. Either way, as you say, I recommend withdrawing this 'proposal', as it's going to go nowhere. Best wishes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 4 December 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:مهدي جزائري part II

In September مهدي جزائري (talk · contribs) was blocked for one week for making unsourced changes to BLP articles: link to AN/I discussion They are still at it: [298] and in all their time at Wikipedia, they haven't communicated: contributions to Talk pages. As @Spiderone: noted in the previous AN/I report, There could be a language barrier here but it could also be WP:CIR or WP:NOTLISTENING. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, most (if not all) of their edits were made on mobile, so this might be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As may be, but mobile users should not be exempted from having to communicate with other editors because the WMF can't write sound software. When enough of them are blocked for failure to do so, perhaps the WMF will get off their collective asses. Ravenswing 04:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

More unsourced changes on my watchlist: [299] Robby.is.on (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

More: [300], [301] This is getting tiresome and frustrating. WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU or not, the editor's editing is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. Someone please intervene. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, @Mattythewhite:, someone…? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsure if I can block due to my restrictions, but agree a lenghty block or even indef is merited... GiantSnowman 19:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Preventing archiving. Action needed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just block the /64

2001:4450:8398:4100:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) The only edit summary this editor ever uses is "255" and they don't seem to be responsive to warnings. 1 2

The edits include unsourced additions[302][303] and weird date changes[304][305]

Already subject to a partial block of the /40, but the editor has been on this /64 since October with no change in behaviour. Probably some sort of CIR situation. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2001:4450:8398:4100:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. I should explain that the current IP and range has not been blocked so I started with a week. Please let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

User: Lord Alan B'stard and possible retaliatory editing

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

---

Let me start out by saying that I am under stress because my fully vaccinated and triple boosted wife of 41 years had been in the hospital for four days with complications of COVID-19 despite all our diligent efforts to avoid exposure for 2-3/4 years. She has a variety of pre-existing conditions that put her at risk. So, if I am over-reacting, please forgive me.

I noticed a discussion at User talk: Robert McClenon#Ronnie Lahiri about an Indian film producer and offered some advice to this editor about their draft. I think that my advice was neutral and in good faith, but it went on for a bit, so Robert asked us to take the conversation elsewhere, which was an entirely reasonable request on his part. Pinging Robert McClenon if he has any comments.

The conversation then moved to WP:Teahouse#Help needed for Draft:Ronnie Lahiri where I continued trying to give the editor useful advice about establishing notability of the topic of the draft, and tried to explain the importance of fully independent sources for establishing notability. It seemed like a normal discussion about Wikipedia's notability standards at this point.

Then, this editor posted on my talk page, at User talk: Cullen328#Kalparatu Day (sic) informing me that they disapproved of Kalpataru Day, an article about an Indian topic that I had significantly expanded twelve years ago. They removed most of the content and removed every single reference, including a book published by the University of Chicago Press that devotes several pages to the topic. Now, I am certainly receptive to edits intended to improve the article or to serious critiques of its sources. And certainly it is possible that some poor quality material may have been added to that article over the years. But there was none of that. The article was gutted.

What seems clear to me at this point (although I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong) is that this is retaliatory editing intended to punish me for trying to insist that Wikipedia's notability guidelines be adhered to. Am I wrong? Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am very sorry to learn about your wife. And I sincerely apologise for any stress I have caused you. I don't wish to cause you further stress at this time by prolonging the discussion here. Over and out.Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Lord Alan B'stard, I do not need your apology about my wife. Over and out is escapism. Hundreds of our friends and family members are expressing their concern and offering their best wishes and prayers for her. I want you to fully address the substance of my report about your behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am taking a wikibreak. Perhaps you ought too as well. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I will not take a wikibreak because I truly love contributing to this wonderful encyclopedia, Lord Alan B'stard. Taking a Wikibreak to avoid scrutiny is not what mature adults do. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not shirking from scrutiny. However, this is simply not the time for it. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Lord Alan B'stard, the time to explain your behavior is now. Please do so. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

See also this post [306] by Lord Alan B'stard. What appears to be an entirely unwarranted accusation of racism, based on nothing more than normal comments concerning an inadequately-sourced draft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If this chap declines to account for his behavior (including his frankly bizarre ranting on Cullen328's talk page) and do a great deal better than one of those "I'm sorry if you're so touchy as to be bothered by anything I've done" non-apologies, perhaps a fairly long wikibreak could be arranged for him. With just 38 mainspace edits, I think we'd manage to soldier on all the same without him. Ravenswing 07:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Lord A's most recent addition to his User page "I'm here now (to Lord it over this Realm) duckies" suggests that his disruptive behavior will continue. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The user is welcome to put stuff like that on their userpage as far as I'm concerned, David notMD. But not to harass Cullen, nor to follow up the harassment with non-apologies and with a wikibreak because "this is simply not the time" to explain their egregiously retaliatory conduct. I have blocked indefinitely as not being here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 13:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC).

I've been mulling over to whether to say anything, and WP:ASPERSIONS not withstanding, my gut feeling is this, given the username is (or appears to be) a portmanteau of Lord Alan Sugar and Alan B'Stard, a typical trait for these socks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right... from what I know of that sockmaster, I really don't think they'd be writing a draft about an Indian film producer. They also very clearly understand RS (though have gotten in spats about it before) and have done work to remove (at least what they perceived as) unreliable sources from articles in the past. Either they're trolling or it's someone else - I really don't think someone would go from removing too many sources to adding too many sources. I think we just have a bog standard case of a new editor's refusal to understand notability. It happens a lot. Unless I'm missing something obvious? casualdejekyll 14:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rather moot, though. Plenty of new editors don't understand the complexities of notability, and that's eminently understandable. But there isn't anyone who shouldn't be able to grasp the essentials of good behavior, and for those few who were raised in a cave somewhere and decline to try, there's a simple remedy. Good block by Bishonen. Ravenswing 15:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I became involved in this dispute when I saw Ronnie Lahiri in the New Page Feed with no references, and moved it to draft space. User: Lord Alan B'stard then replied on my talk page saying that he had added high-quality sources to the draft, and asked that I re-review it. User:Cullen328 (who is welcome to read my talk page and reply) replied with comments about the quality of the sources, and there was a dialogue about the acceptability of interviews. I declined the draft. The discussion that continued on my talk page was lengthy and civil, but wasn't primarily about my edits, so I copied it to the draft talk page and closed it on my user talk page. I then went to bed, and when it was morning in Maryland, I saw this flap. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • What is noteworthy is the cowardice displayed by User: Lord Alan B'stard, who, after being rebuked for a questionable expression of sympathy to an editor with a Real Life family crisis, and being called to account for some strange edits, decided to take a wikibreak and advised Cullen328 to do the same, and said that it was not the time for scrutiny of their edits.
  • What started this was that I moved an article with no references into draft space. I see that the subject editor removed all of the references, and almost all of the content, from a long-existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Community Ban

I see that User:Bishonen has indefinitely blocked User: Lord Alan B'stard. I concur, and propose that the subject editor be community banned for retaliatory and hit-and-run editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, hardly worth the bother dignifying this character with a ban, surely? Bishonen | tålk 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC).
• If Lord B'Stard takes a standard offer in six months, and then gets blocked again, and the cycle repeats, that's the time to talk about a CBAN. Before then, this is process for process' sake. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 5 December 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.

Account hijackings by vandal

The recently WMF banned vandal Atac2 has a habit of hijacking old accounts to use as sockpuppets. I've noticed two such recent accounts Rykcloete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Saratejinera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You can tell it's them because they have a habit of adding the fictious "Ron Merkle" to articles. Would it be possible to set up a private filter to monitor all uses of that string? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've taken out a few accounts. Thanks for spotting them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Long term BLP violations at Chad Zumock

This may need page protection and some rev/deletion. Persistent addition of defamatory content going back at least a few weeks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 3 months and revdel'd the BLP violations. DanCherek (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, DanCherek--it's a start. There's BLP stuff going back much further, a lot of it concerning criminal activity that probably doesn't belong here. Mixed in with that is a bit of WP:COI business, so it's a basic hot mess. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I looked further back and redacted some more BLP vios – but yeah, there's a lot of edits to sort through, so let me know if I missed anything. DanCherek (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the worst edit histories I've ever seen for a BLP, especially for someone who isn't broadly known. Seems like a lot of intramural warring. There's a really odd contribution from August 18 of this year--I don't know if it rises to the level of defamation, but it scrapes some sort of barrel. Thanks again, DanCherek, for sifting through this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

IP vandalism

This IP address just vandalized Securitas depot robbery, repeatedly adding sections about Brianna Wu's gender. Have no idea who Wu is but glancing at her article seems to have something to do with Gamergate. When I reverted them, they left a nice message on my talk page. See article history and talk page for evidence. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 02:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

After posting a similar message on another user's talk page and a user warned for unconstructive edits, it seems they've been her before and have some beef with others. See their contributions. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 02:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked them — just a heads-up that WP:AIV is sometimes quicker for reporting obvious vandalism like this — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 02:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime Thanks. I wasn't sure where to post this as the vandalism happened literally five minutes ago. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 02:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User Lalisa Manobal is insulting me

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

---

Hello, I’m to report this user for this thing, she insulted me when she reverted one edit from me in the article Bosnia and Herzegovina, as seen here, where she told me “asshole”, after that I advised the user to ask her explanations in Spanish (because she seems Spanish native-speaker like me) of why she told me that or I report her, also I putted back my edit and also I watched her editing history and I saw that she has insulted other users for supposed mistakes, so I edited my comment to the user to relax, but she continued to insult me, as seen here: 1 2, where she told me a retard again and also she was judging me without authorization about supposedly I don't know English, when I know it, please guys help me, this user seems that it insulted other users, not only me. Pablo the Helper - To your service! 05:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Lalisa Manobal (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely for personal attacks. Levying the R-word [307][308][309][310] and other insults ("asshole" [311], "Stupid mf" [312]) at multiple editors on multiple occasions is not okay. DanCherek (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much bud, for helping me. :) Pablo the Helper - To your service! 05:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, the reported username here is the personal name of Blackpink's singer, Lisa (rapper) and should not be unblocked if request until they rename the account. – robertsky (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And the OP, Pablo the Helper, has been blocked for socking. Wikipedia gets wild some days. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 5 December 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.

Please block this sockpuppet.

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.

---

• Thatgigglygamer2 (talk · contribs)
• Thatgigglygamer (talk · contribs)

These two users are obviously sockpuppets. "1" The first account was blocked indefinitely because of vandalism on Smiling Friends. Additionally, can you review this comment [313] from the user. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 00:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. I see you have already reverted the childish insult on your talk page, which is the best way to deal with that. Thanks for reporting. DanCherek (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! <3 Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 01:12, 5 December 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 Michael60634

This user has repeated reverted a (perfectly reasonable) edit to Town. The first two times, he claimed (incorrectly) that this was "reverting vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.87.62 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the history of IP vandalism, I don't blame them for classifying the removal as vandalism. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on the IP editor to explain why the towns should not be mentioned by name. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify me if you open a WP:ANI discussion about me. You did not. What you did do is send me the "disruptive editor" template.

What I did was reverted an unjustified removal of content. If you read the article, it says "New Zealand's towns vary greatly in size and importance, ranging from small rural service centres to significant regional centres such as Blenheim and Taupō." You cannot claim that Blenheim and Taupō are notnotable and should not be included, while tat the same time he article quite literally says these towns are significant regional centres. Michael60634 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I applied pending changed to the article. The rest must be discussed at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Footwiks

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

---

Can someone else please try to explain to User:Footwiks that they are not allowed to remove speedy deletion notices from pages they created[314][315][316]? Judging from that article, it may be time to consider whether they even have the necessary competence to write articles in English in the first place. Fram (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted Shirt swapping per WP:G12 and left a note explaining why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Footwiks normally means well, but I am unsure what went wrong exactly other than some copyvio, as I can't see those edits. But as for Shirt swapping, that happens a lot in football, could be a valid topic. No need to be so harsh on the guy. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not? They don't understand about copyright, they apparently don't understand that they are not allowed to remove the deletion notice, and they write sentences like "Since this shirt swapping, facilitate shirt swapping in widely." That they mean well and that the topic may be valid doesn't change anything about their apparent lack of competence. Fram (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

See e.g. the result of their recent edits here. They mean well, no one disputes this, but it looks to me as if their knowledge of English is somewhat insufficient. Fram (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think what Govvy means, and indeed WP:CIRNOT says directly, that we should strive to be as patient as possible and avoid hostility. I've left an explanation for why I deleted the article, and I'll respond to any follow-up questions from Footwiks as and when they arrive. There's no need to beat him up over it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not beating him up about the copyvio, but about his problematic contributions when they tried to add actual text (and not just facts and names in tables and so on). Feel free to inform then that "If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page.". Perhaps they will understand this, although their lack of understanding of "Do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" makes this doubtful. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It can be easy to miss the obvious sometimes, and when English is not your primary language that can be even-more-so. But Ritchie pretty much said above what I wanted to say. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, administrator. I created Shirt swapping article. I used the source from [dailymail article].

So User Fram attached speedy deletion template as belows.

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2317025/Football-shirt-swaps-Bobby-Moore-Pele-England-v-Argentina.html

I exchanged the source from dailymail article to South Korean newspaper article and removed the speedy deletion template.

I didn't know that we do no use dailymail article as source in Wikipedia.

Did I do so wrong? I don't think so. Footwiks (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't that you used the Daily Mail per se, it's that the text you put in the article was directly copied and pasted from it, and that's why it was deleted. It's not a question of "wrong" so much as Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and by that we mean "free" as in "speech". I deleted the article purely because the text directly conflicted with our ethos of a free encyclopedia. As Govvy has said above, there's no reason we can't have an article on shirt swapping generally, but we can't use this plagiarised one. I hope that makes sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please explain my fault in detail.

(1) Using of dailymail source in article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2317025/Football-shirt-swaps-Bobby-Moore-Pele-England-v-Argentina.html

-> I didn't know that and I'll do not use dailymail source

(2) Poor English sentence?

-> I created article and about 10 minitues later, Fram attachched speedy deleiotion template. I didnt have plenty of time to polish the sentence.

Footwiks (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Footwiks It's none of these - it's because the page violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

... and Footwiks then proceeded to post a copyvio of the Daily Mail source to Ritchie's talk page[317]... Fram (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that below sentence is copyvio of the Daily Mail source?

The 1931 association football match between the national teams of Fracne vs England is known to origin and In 1970 FIFA World Cup, Pelé and Bobby Moore swapped shirt. Since this shirt swapping, shirt swapping is spreaded widely.

South Korean newspaper also had same sentence. Footwiks (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Shirt swapping term. Is this plagiarism?

In sports, especailly association football, swap shirt is common tradition.

I thought Shirt swapping term is general term.

Please Check out FIFA website as swap shirt

https://www.fifa.com/search-results?q=swap%20shirt

Please Check out the videos as swap football shirt

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=football+shirt+swapping

Please check out NFL website

https://www.nfl.com/photos/nfl-jersey-swap-0ap3000000447712#34d20b83-82e2-4b5d-bf70-36ed37591d44

Dailymaill didn't invent Shirt swapping term.

If you think that Shirt swapping term is plagiarism

I can exchange article title as belows.

• Jersey swap
• Shirt exchange
• Exchange of football shirt and so on.

Please check out my draft

Shirt swapping is long tradition in association football.

• Origin

The 1931 association football match between the national teams of Fracne vs England is known to origin a In FIFA World Cup, at 1954 FIFA World Cup, shirt swapping begin first and Pelé and Bobby Moore swapped shirt in 1970 FIFA World Cup. Since this shirt swapping, shirt swapping is spreaded widely.

• Notable shirt swapping

Competition	Matches		Players		Discription
1970 FIFA World Cup	Group stage	Brazil vs England	Pelé	Bobby Moore	Triggerd general shirt swapping
2022 FIFA World Cup	Round of 16	Brazil vs Australia	Lionel Messi	Cameron Devlin	Shirt worn Lionel Messi's 1000th match

• Other sports

In National Football League, Players also swap shirts.

• References

According to your advice, I replaced the Daily Mail source. Shirt swapping is general term. All sentence have reliable source. I think that my draft don't have more Violaion of Wikipedia's copyright policy. If my draft have Violaion of Wikipedia's copyright policy, Please explain detail.

Footwiks (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Footwiks: Enough already, this isn't the place to post all of that. If you need help with football stuff goto WT:FOOTBALL. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, Govvy, If issue is notability and so on. I'll need help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. But Fram attached speedy deletion template and Ritchie333 deleted my article.

  OK, My former article had copywright issue. But I corrected the problem according to your advice. Now Why do administrators look away?

  I'll get straight to the point. Do my draft have still violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy? If you still look away. I think that my draft don't have problem and I'll create the article again. Footwiks (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with starting the article again in your user space or draft space, just avoid direct copying of anything. Always make sure you construct your own words. However, ANI is for serious issues that need addressing. For article content, you should consult the appropriate projects. Govvy (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for your advice. Have a good day. Footwiks (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Footwiks, for the THIRD TIME, I deleted your article BECAUSE IT VIOLATED COPYRIGHT. Stop personally attacking me for things I did not do. I have rewritten the re-created Shirt swapping so it does not violate copyright, and in retrospect it would have been simpler if I'd have done this in the first place, as it would have avoided this lengthy ANI thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 6 December 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.