Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047

User:Zackomode

@Doug Weller, RolandR, Larry Hockett, Richard3120, and Esowteric:

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

New user off to a bad start of ignoring repeated warnings on the same set of issues. A brief block may be needed to emphasize that the warnings mean something.

These ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]) are some of the edits that have prompted user talk messages and warnings. Click "Next edit" on any to see the reverter's summary, or just look on User talk:Zackomode. Essentially, the pattern is one of blindly replacing certain words and phrases with the user's preferred word or phrase, even when this breaks grammar, breaks wikilinks, introduces inaccuracy, or changes a direct quote. The user's editing frequency seems to be increasing, so this strikes me as a good time to make an impression, and hopefully save a lot of later cleanup effort. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly warned this user, over behaviour such as needlessly changing from British to American English,[6][7][8] unnecessary fiddly edits,[9][10][11][12] and particularly changing direct quotations to match their own preferred usage.[13][14][15][16][17]. They have even edited my comments on their talk page.[18] I have left them a personal message explaining the problem with their edits,[19] as well as several templated warnings. But this does not seem to have made any impression, and the editor continues regardless with their disruptive, unhelpful and frequently outright erroneous edits. I think that the editor needs a short block as a warning, with a warning that continuing in this way could lead to the permanent withdrawal of their editing privileges. RolandR (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Swpb's final example above, the J.K. Rowling edit, is a good example of the two biggest problems with this user's edits. I can live with the addition of serial/Oxford commas all over the place, even if their addition is unnecessary and breaks the flow of the prose in places. But direct quotations should never be changed, even if the spelling or grammar was incorrect in the first place. And more troubling is the changing of words which then make no sense in the context of the sentence – in the J.K. Rowling article it's the change of the noun "a wait" to the verb "await". There's another example here where in the "Critical reception" section "with in" was changed to "within" which makes no grammatical sense in the context. I don't know whether the user just has poor grammar (in which case WP:CIR applies), or if they are running the article through an automatic spelling/grammar checker and making the corrections suggested by the program... if so, this is exactly why the use of machine translators to translate articles from other languages is discouraged on Wikipedia, because computer programs are not infallible. Richard3120 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. I do think there can be legitimate fixes applied to direct quotes (per MOS:PMC) to correct errors, but rather than correcting errors in such quotes, this user is simply swapping out words to match his own preferences.

This edit concerns me. To me, it defies logic to hold out a preference for American English over Australian English on an article titled Culture of Australia - especially after having received a user talk page warning related to national varieties of English a week earlier. Because Zackomode doesn't use talk pages and rarely uses edit summaries, we are left without an understanding of how to best help him with these issues. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Maybe a short-term block would be appropriate, so that the user's attention is drawn to the issue. Then, if they choose to appeal, that may provide an opening for constructive dialogue? Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that the user has fallen silent (made no edits) since the last warning on Monday 31 August 2020. Esowteric+Talk 20:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a link between Zackomode and Emotioness Expression (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (perhaps both using a tool such as Grammarly)? See eg American Frontier history. Esowteric+Talk 08:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another who was using Grammarly to do significant unintentional damage, and they have now agreed to stop using it. Grammarly makes a lot of very poor suggestions and expects the user to identify them and reject them; that is clearly not happening. Grammarly is a terrible judge of the use of Oxford commas, for example (see the 3rd and 4th changes from the end of this edit). Something needs to be done about Grammarly if we care about the quality of lower-visibility articles – something more effective than random ongoing Wac-A-Mole. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we will find more users using the tool Grammarly and making the same errors. I mean what is the probability of having 3 users using the same tool and making a similar type of edits? about the same span as in August-September? I don't mind my account being investigated as a Sock Puppet with the above 2 users by the admins or CU, because I am innocent, but I am not sure about the two users "Emotioness Expression" and "Zackomode" above. But this such a strange coincidence. :D Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 11:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we've gotten these users' attention, but I would still like to see the result of a CU of Zackomode and Emotioness Expression. Something about the latter's comments today on User talk:Zackomode feels like "doth protest too much", to me. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss, Swpb, and UncleBubba: Reported them for SPI, I have gone through their edit history, highly confident they are sock puppets. Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 15:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, "doth protest too much" was on my mind, too. Here's the SPI report link. The reporter may consider notifying the parties, according to the SPI guidelines. Esowteric+Talk 19:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Zackomode has been confirmed as a sock of Emotioness Expression and indeffed (see link above). Esowteric+Talk 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia to besmirch reputations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Baptist_Institute

Someone has taken the habit of posting information to the above page of very serious allegations that are un-proven, related to a matter that is making its way through the court system. I don't care how many footnotes they post referencing media articles about the matter, that does not make the matter proven and, until the matter is decided in court, I think there is a good chance that this could be considered libel, though there might be a more fitting term for it. Either way, the law says that one can't post material slamming a person or institution with unproven allegations. Being that we're talking about Wiki, I have little faith that the right thing will be done in this instance but I am recommending that the school's board of trustees refer this matter to their attorneys if it is not dealt with appropriately. Stop allowing your platform to be used maliciously by individuals who clearly need to get a job.

--Stray post found 17:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Above was posted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts some weeks ago. It looks like the matter's been attended to. Posting here as a step to archiving it. EEng 17:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

IP jumper adding questionable TV program(s) to TV station programming lists

An IP user with frequently changing address keeps adding up to three program titles to lists of programs broadcast by a number of television broadcasters, particularly but not exclusively Fox-affiliated channels and Australian commercial channels, in addition to some Vietnamese stations. These are:

• Drama
• Pham Viet Dung
• Phạm Việt Dũng

The latter two are, yes, typically added together, positioned one after the other. Sometimes they're linked, sometimes not. Variations include:

• Phao Pham Viet Dung[20]
• Drama (Pham Viet Dung)[21][22], combining the two
• (also on Pham Viet Dung)[23], appended to a number of existing listings

The same user sometimes adds other programs as well.

What's suspicious to me is (a) the multiple placement of the "Pham Viet Dung" title, with an without the diacritics, in each article where it's been added; (b) the arbitrary merger of that title with the "Drama" title in a couple of cases, (c) I can't find evidence that a program with that Vietnamese title exists (it appears to be a personal full name shared by a number of people), and (d) it seems unlikely that one program with an apparently Vietnamese title would be run by every one of Australia's commercial broadcasters, as is implied by its inclusion at 7two, 7flix, 7mate, 9Gem, 9Go!, 10 Bold, and 10 Peach.

Sample IP addresses that this is coming from:

• Special:Contributions/171.242.46.218
• Special:Contributions/171.242.238.33
• Special:Contributions/171.245.105.121
• Special:Contributions/2001:ee0:242:c5dd:68fc:9cf1:7a1d:274d
• Special:Contributions/2402:800:613b:52ac:51e4:593b:d9c9:7855
• Special:Contributions/2402:800:613b:52ac:602c:33ed:d4e4:ab36

You can find cases that I reverted at Special:Contributions/Largoplazo, between 10:13 and 12:30 on 7 September 2020. (In one or two cases I accidentally restored instances that someone else had already removed. I hope I've fixed all those cases.)

I've placed warnings at the talk page of a couple of these addresses but of course the user is gone from that address by the time I've done that.

Any suggestions? Largoplazo (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Largoplaza, check out 171.242.0.0/16, which I just blocked. That's about all I can do for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, a bunch of your fixes were unfixed a few hours ago by Special:Contributions/ 2402:800:613B:667C:1068:839:C46A:5809. I've just taken care of them again. Largoplazo (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Now they're adding phony edit summaries: "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links". Largoplazo (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked both ranges; a previous block mentions sockpuppetteer User:PHAM VIET DUNG; edits from the original account aren't similar, but you'll see similarities if you observe edits from some of the confirmed socks (e.g., adding "Drama"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Now I can dismiss the small voice in my head whispering, "But what if it really is a TV show?" Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup needed for subtle vandalism

Special:Contribs/179.50.174.148 seems to have been engaging in a pattern of subtle vandalism for around a month, totaling roughly 100 edits. Could someone revert and review the pages for any further cleanup needed? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I blasted a lot of these edits, but I doubt I got everything. There is a sustained pattern for over a year of subtle changes to serial killer articles. Given how much of it is vandalism, I treated the other edits accordingly. Maxim_(talk) 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Disputes and edit-warring around KikiCamarena-related articles

• The Last Narc (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - new article
• Félix Rodríguez (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kiki Camarena ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit-warring and BLP vios. My guess is that The Last Narc (documentary) is causing the recent interest and disputes. The dispute at Kiki Camarena seems to be going ok, with lengthy discussions focusing on the quality of references and an open RfC. The rest is a mess. Maybe protect Félix Rodríguez (soldier) while the Camarena RfC is underway? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Hipal: I have previously requested [24] that Kiki Camarena be protected from IP edits, since there there seem to be many IPs helping or participating in edit warring [25][26][27]. If we were to protect all these articles from IP / new user edits, that would be ideal. -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there other articles getting hit? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

These articles all seem to be related to Iran–Contra affair, and new attention, growing since 2013, to the Kiki Camarena component of it. Probably Amiram Nir should be protected, and maybe Barry Seal as well. I have no idea about others. -Darouet (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Hipal:. I think that The Last Narc testimonies, particularly those of former DEA Héctor Berellez that led the investigation of Camarena's murder, Phil Jordan, former DEA Intelligence Director, Mike Holm, DEA resident agent in charge in Guadalajara when Camarena got kidnapped and Manny Medrano, former assistant US Attorney and Lead Prosecutor in Camarena case, must appear in both Camarena and Rodríguez articles. I agree that the texts have a margin for improvement in both cases, some interesting data are still missing and some others seem a bit outdated. In addition, they could be presented more orderly. About the rest of articles you are discussing, I don't have much to add. Great job in The Last Narc article @Darouet:--Cocedi (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cocedi:: You are missing the point. I started this discussion in part to intervene with your behavior, rather than work directly to have you blocked or banned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I don't understand this ad hominem and the direct threat of being blocked or banned, this doesn't seem like the best way to run talks. And anyway I don't know either in which point my behaviour was any different from yours in this topic. Maybe you can clarify it for all of us but I don't really see the point in taking things personally when as far as I know nobody broke any rule or was disrespectful. --Cocedi (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

No "ad hominem". I didn't provide diffs because they are obvious. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material without edit summaries, even after responding here. Blatant. Then leaving me a notice? As I pointed out in my first comment to you, if you don't understand policies very well, you shouldn't be working on BLP articles, nor articles under sanctions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So as I said, ad hominem, funniest thing is that while you got all of us into this discussion, I already agreed with another editor on both articles, asking him to do the last edition. So I think that if you don't have anything else to add, we can let it here.--Cocedi (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a baseless attack against me in an attempt to distract from your behavioral problems, or you simply don't understand what "ad hominem" means.

Will you stop edit warring? Will you stop adding dispute BLP content against consensus? Will you start using edit summaries and work cooperatively with others? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What I'm going to do is stop answering you because I no longer see any sense in it, this is ridiculous.--Cocedi (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So being asked if you are going to continue to violate policy is "ridiculous"? Not if you mean to continue working on such articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Pair of IP addresses rapidly deleting wikilinks (dozens / hundreds of articles in a day) and rapidly reverting attempts to restore pages (Special:Contributions/95.168.121.207; Special:Contributions/212.15.177.29)

See Special:Contributions/95.168.121.207 and Special:Contributions/212.15.177.29 for the record of behavior. Two users, one person, who is rapidly stripping wikilinks from dozens to hundreds of articles per day, potentially through automated editing. No edit summaries given for their edits. A glance at the two contributions pages demonstrates that it's a single person behind both users. Both are just as rapidly en-masse reverting attempts to restore the pages affected regardless of which of the two IP-address users made the original edits. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks problematic. But also looks stale. The 212 IP was only active in late August (and prior to that a different 212... IP (212.15.177.32) was involved). The 95 IP, which does seem to be related (or else just is here to harass ComicsAreJustAllRight) was only active up through September 2. I don't see any activity in Special:Contributions/212.15.177.0/24 in the past week. Lots of activity in Special:Contributions/95.168.121.0/24, a different IP each day, but nothing beyond September 5. By whois, these are all Croatian broadband "static" IPs, but from behavior it's not that static. They are each larger than /24 (/19 or /21). I could support a rangeblock if this happens more. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll keep my eye on the issue if/when it recurs to help address it. This person seems to slam a bunch of articles from those addresses, stripping wikilinks from a dictionary list of words, wait a while, then start up again. I expect the repair work I'll be doing on those articles to prompt another flurry, as articles addressed in my last pass behind the person seemed to be targeted for further vandalism. Looking at the latest edits by both IP addresses, I highly suspect use of an automated tool, as there are also block phrases changed in multiple articles, search/replace-style, regardless of the different context in which they appear. Weirdly, the common thread seems to be making articles less accessible for Wikipedia's non-expert audience, as not only are wikilinks being yanked out seemingly at random, common language is being replaced with specific-audience-only jargon. Don't know why someone would do that, let alone in the way it's happening. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The bad editing from the 95.* IP resumed on 8 September. The new edit was vandalism, since it removed pictures from the article for no apparent reason. Some decision is needed as to the width of any rangeblock and a proper duration for the block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The 95.* user is editing from Special:Contributions/95.168.0.0/16. All the recent edits appear to be related to comic books. Many edits from the range are highlighted as vandalism by mw:ORES. I've blocked Special:Contributions/95.168.121.0/24 for a month for vandalism. Other admins can modify the block as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Duck

Just a quick notice that I plan on indeffing LocalContributor281 as a sock of ShaddaiWright. In an ideal world, I'd like to have another admin review this situation closely; but having followed this user's efforts over the past year or so, it's clearly the same person, and the intent (across multiple accounts) is clearly to insert their own artwork to replace artwork on prominent cartoon characters' wiki pages. Uninvolved eyes couldn't hurt if somebody has the time. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaddai Wright instead of ShaddaiWright, which does not exist Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted their most recent edit on Phantom Blot. Based on my inspection of the two images are the same quality and seem to just be the gif image in a png format. The png file is larger, so I've reverted because using a smaller file size for the same quality is better for the reader. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Also from a limited inspection of edits I can see similarities. I'll look further. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure, though I don't know this user / the socks well. I have found evidence which points to a connection, but nothing definite. I'll leave this to someone else to make a proper review. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Good find, sorry for the typo. There are two interlocking issues here: One is that the user is using new usernames to evade a block, the other has to do with the specific edits. I suggest we simply block on the basis of WP:SOCK. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz Sorry, I had overlooked your final comment. This is the challenge I'm up against. I've been doing my best to offer this user guidance for about a year, and I'm familiar with their approach. I'm entirely confident it's the same person; but the clues are subtle, and would require a good deal of work (either on my part or on yours) to demonstrate it convincingly. I don't really have the bandwidth to delve into the details; but I'm open to other suggestions prior to taking action. I'm happy to answer any questions too. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:BostonMensa and MOS

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

BostonMensa (talk · contribs) appears not to agree with the WP:MOS on the presentation of adjacent references. They separate them with a comma and a space. They have been advised, several times, of the MOS as set out at MOS:CITEPUNCT, but they do not reply to messages on their talk page and they continue with this behaviour: see their latest article creation at the point where they stopped editing it. They also appear to believe that the DEFAULTSORT belongs right at the end of the article, below stub tags, although they have been referred to WP:ORDER several times. It would be helpful if they could be reminded, through this page, that the MOS exists and should be followed unless there are particular reasons not to. Thanks. PamD 15:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• BostonMensa's UTP and contribs suggests they are ignoring concerns brought by multiple editors about multiple issues, including MOS compliance and article tagging. Seems to be a WP:Communication is required#Repeated complaints by multiple editors problem. Lev!vich 16:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots beat me to a block by moments :) user blocked for a week, with luck they might now communicate and we can solve this issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, continuing to repeat the same edits two days after a final warning seems like WP:IDONTHEARTHAT territory. Let them have some thinking time. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A minor thing considering the other concerns, but if they return to editing they should change their username due to WP:ISU. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues at American National University, including defamatory content

Asking for a user block, possibly page protection, and definitely rev/deletion of WP:BLP violations. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dealt with by Ohnoitsjamie. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Pasting of copyrighted material

Hey, there was some copypasted material from a magazine website of Excited delerium I reverted it, but when I've seen people deal with copyrighted material before they also hide / delete the commits containing the material. Is this something an admin could help me with? Please tell me if I'm askingn in the wrong place! Talpedia (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Talpedia: What page? What dif's? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Deepfriedokra:, these diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excited_delirium&type=revision&diff=977627119&oldid=977622700&diffmode=source. Here's my reversion : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excited_delirium&type=revision&diff=977629209&oldid=977627119&diffmode=source (along with details of where the material was copied from). Talpedia (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Talpedia, Revdeled and warning left. Strangely it didn't appear at copypatrol but that was a pretty clear cut violation; they even left the "we" in. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, as well as here, you can also use a template to request revision deletion and summon an admin who will remove the revisions containing copyright infringing material. See WP:COPYVIO. The template is listed there as well as instructions for other situations (where the entire article may be a copyvio, or there is no safe revision to revert to etc). Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You can also use Enterprisey's script to do so, see here [28] Agent00x (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

My tiny WP:ESSAY "we" here would seem to be relevant here. Have I mentioned that Tasmania is not a fictional place, lately? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Britney Spears is better than those wannabes

Some POV stuff about Britney Spears being better than other singers is being added to articles by two IPs from Massachusetts. Can we fix this? Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• 2600:1000:B026:D805:FCFE:8588:6FB6:B04F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1000:B016:1079:B55F:FE4B:6324:80CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I've blocked the most recent one for a few days as it's pretty unhelpful editing - but these seem to be fairly dynamic Verizon IPs covering most of the state; we would have to rangeblock a /42 just to cover the range these two are on. It's pretty harmless low-grade stuff so I doubt it's worth taking any drastic measures at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 20:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

May be worth asking at WP:RFPP for protection if they return to specific articles.--Hippeus (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Only Melissa Cherry is better, —PaleoNeonate – 04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Take Me From Behind" is a classic of our time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And "It's not about sex at all. Just, you know, love sneaking back on you... from the behind." —PaleoNeonate – 23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed

Is this a vaild thing? Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/SUNY Plattsburgh/Cell Biology Lab A (Fall 2020) - sort of interesting if it is. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Very valid, and not this first time this has been done on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Goodstuff. Is This edit valid? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What does cellular biology have to do with the Quran? ST47 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears it was assigned by the instructor? Scratch that the student added it. @Ian (Wiki Ed): Could you chime in with any insight on this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ask The Great Oracle-- Quran and cellular biology --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that! Had no idea. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

People frequently find anachronistic connections between ancient texts and cell biology; it's a hallowed tradition and a mainstay of pious debate relating to medicine in general and abortion in particular. GPinkerton (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: It's not a good pick for a student to work on, and it's definitely not something we'd recommend in a cell biology class. I've emailed the instructor and asked them to get the student to pick a different article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I remember a related (although far milder) incident when a student at the Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brooklyn College/Orality, Literacy, Computer Technology (Fall 2019) wanted to work on a bunch of Led Zeppelin album articles, which I thought was a bad idea because the articles were all reasonably developed and had a lot of reverting of good-faith edits over a sustained period of time (which in turn were good-faith in themselves). I told User:Elysia (Wiki Ed) about it and they agreed it was a bad idea for an article. I see Ian has the same view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. It sounds like one of those multi disciplinary honors class assignments that look good on one's CV

Whatabout Islamic attitudes towards science? The subheading Embryology and the Quran could be expanded to Cell biology in Islam? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And there's probably something to say about old philosophy and beliefs in the perspective of history of science, the important would be avoiding foreknowledge claims in ancient literature about recent discoveries (I remember some related deleted articles)... —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig for offwiki links, but I've also seen it suggested that the Koran encapsulates quantum mechanics and astrophysics as well as molecular biology. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Narky Blert (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes exactly, —PaleoNeonate – 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Zerolandteam385

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.

---

• Zerolandteam385 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think Zerolandteam385 needs the help of someone imbued with kindness and patience. The user has made 218 edits including the creation of 23 articles, of which five have been deleted and seven moved to Draft. These include Draft:5G zombie apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 9/11 In Movies Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and a G4 recreation at 9/11 Predictive Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), also Microchip Is The Mark Of The Beast Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and edits like [29] and [30], which are, to be charitable, not well-sourced. I don't think this user has English as a first language, and I don't think they understand our sourcing policies. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that the sourcing for Draft:5G zombie apocalypse is a thing of beauty, especially the last three "sources". Black Kite (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• That's really something. Not being imbued with kindness and patience, I recommend just blocking the user per WP:CIR until they can demonstrate that they can edit Wikipedia competently and are no longer a net negative to the project because of the cleanup work they generate for others. Sandstein 11:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• And thanks to editors willing to help cleaning up, —PaleoNeonate – 11:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be worth also looking at these edits[31][32] by Reo On at Microchip implant (human). RolandR (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A mention of conspiracy theories there is of course unevitable, remains to make sure it's WP:DUE, avoids fringe sources and doesn't misrepresent them... —PaleoNeonate – 14:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mightily entertaining, but "whosoeuer was not founde wrytten in the boke of lyfe, was cast into the lake of fyre", as they say ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• They are still trying to add a "Controversy" section (with a level 1 heading no less) to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic‎. This is despite me removing a wholly botched attempt (resulted in a broken article) and saying if the information belonged anywhere it belonged in the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Politics section which deals with anti-mask attitudes already. I would have attempted to salvage some information, only the references provided were all in Greek. While I was happy enough to use Chrome's automated translation to see if In many European countries (mostly in Greece) did not appear to be referenced, and I prefer not to add or amend article content using automated translation. Something needs to be done regarding this editor, their constant attempt to create articles on crackpot theories using not much apart from Youtube videos is troubling. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• "which are, to be charitable, not well-sourced" The second instance actually has a decent source, though it might be misrepresented by the editor. It is an article from a mainstream newspaper, To Vima, about a recent protest demonstration in Greece. The parents of young students are protesting against a new regulation that their children will have to wear face masks while in school. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dimadick, it would help if he would use English-language sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Because Zerolandteam385 has continued to create articles with useless sources and highly questionable content, I'm indefinitely blocking them. Sandstein 20:14, 10 September 2020 (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.

Wiko world 100

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.

---

Wiko world 100 has repeatedly created an unsourced article at Assad Ullah Shah. After the 5th deletion the pagename was salted.[33]. Since then the editor has created the article at Talk:Assad Ullah Shah[34] and Wikipedia:Assad Ullah Shah[35].

The user has been advised both on their talk page and in edit summaries that all articles must be referenced but this seems to be ignored. --John B123 (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Other pages deleted and user blocked. GiantSnowman 10:49, 9 September 2020 (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.

Mark Boron

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.

---

• Mark Boron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is behaving disruptively over at List of largest empires. It began as a content dispute which has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page since approximately a week ago. They have since stopped commenting/replying on the article's talk page and moved on to solely editing the article itself without engaging in discussion, reinstating their edits repeatedly after being reverted (see below), moving the article to a different namespace [36], removing a bunch of unrelated markup from the page such as all the categories [37], adding a redirect template [38], editing the page protection template [39][40], and removing maintenance tags without resolving or addressing the problems (see below).

In order to properly illustrate the problems, I think the best way to start is to list the times they were reverted on September 8. In total, they were reverted eight times by five different editors in just over 3 hours (seven times in 1 hour and 3 minutes):

1. 20:05 (UTC) by Kahastok
2. 22:05 by Usernamekiran (AWB)
3. 22:10 by Ganbaruby
4. 22:14 by Ganbaruby
5. 22:39 by Sasan Hero
6. 22:48 by me (part of a series of edits I made restoring the stable version of the article, as another editor had made additions that were not supported by the cited sources shortly before this all unfolded, at 19:31)
7. 22:59 by Sasan Hero
8. 23:08 by me (here I also explained the issues with their edits in the edit summary, in case the reason they kept reinstating their edits was that they did not understand why they were reverted)

They then reinstated their edits yet again [41]. In order not to unnecessarily escalate this further, I pinged them on the article talk page explaining my issues with their edits [42] and added a couple of maintenance tags to the article [43][44]. They have not responded on the talk page but have instead removed the maintenance tags without resolving (or even addressing) the problems [45][46], so I left them a message on their user talk page telling them not to do so [47] and restored the maintenance tags [48][49]. They then removed the tags again [50] and also removed my message from their user talk page [51].

They have been told to stop WP:Edit warring twice on their talk page, first by me [52] and then by Tbhotch [53]. They removed both messages [54][55]. They were also told to stop their disruptive editing thrice, first by Usernamekiran (AWB) [56] and then twice by Ganbaruby [57][58]. These messages were also removed [59].

From the user's contribution history it is clear that this is a WP:SPA, and by my reckoning they are WP:NOTHERE at this point (though I think they were when they started editing). I think it's worth noting that List of largest empires has recently attracted at least two users engaging in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho/Archive – the latter mostly edited other articles but List of largest empires was one of the articles they edited using multiple accounts). Mark Boron has interacted with at least one of those sockpuppeteers, discussing the English-language version of List of largest empires on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia.

It also seems a lot like they're trying to cause problems for me without knowing how [60][61] (and I'm guessing these edits [62][63] were also intended that way, but I'm not sure).

I'm a bit unsure whether this report belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 since there is a mix both general conduct problems and edit warring behaviour from this editor, but ultimately I decided to place it here (mainly due to WP:NOTHERE concerns). I'm open to moving it to the other noticeboard if that is deemed more appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: Mark Boron has been temporarily indefinitely blocked by Floquenbeam for 31 hours for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Including removing this very report twice [64][65], for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef, pending an unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• All things considered, I think an indef is appropriate per several possible rationales, just based on their career so far. Whether it's WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE or WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE They came to my attention at WP:UTRS, where they rang a bell. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • They also said this on their user talk page: I joined the discussion at the request of a friend asking for help to resolve the situation (diff). So I think that settles it – they're a WP:MEATPUPPET (though it's unclear whose – as noted above, there is more than one candidate). TompaDompa (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I've been advised to come here

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

---

There are multiple issues which I've written about on the teahouse. I'm not sure how should I report it over here without losing the discussion there. But I've been advised by an editor to post here so am posting over hereIitianeditor (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to provide diffs to the edits you are reporting as well as notify the editors in question, Iitianeditor Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the link given to me:

. I hope this helps. Iitianeditor (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Iitianeditor My point then and still now is that you must provide diffs to the edits in question that are problematic and notify the involved editors. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae I'll learn it and get back in due course of time.

Another violation which is "forum shopping" is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket# where the discussion about my nominations are. A lot of cricket fans over there saw it and are now contributing to the nominations I've made. I've mentioned the same on the tea house as well. Iitianeditor (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Iitianeditor Honestly at this point I would encourage you to withdraw this. At this point you've more than mistated things and it's clear you've not read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Notifying the relevant Wikiproject of deletion discussions is a normal part of the process of AFD, we literally have categories to do this. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages" the nomination had ALREADY been included over there. The editor is trying to raise it on multiple pages. That is forum shopping as evidenced by the direct quote above. He started a discussion again to try and get support. Have a look at what he started the discussion with. He clearly trying to draw attention to those 20 nominations. "Hi. There's about 20 or so, starting here from yesterday, all by the same editor with the same rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)" what's the purpose of that message if not for "forum shopping". Also, even if this is not what exactly you had in mind, I still believe that I've been disrespected by so many editors and I stand by my complaint. You can't just say "forget it and move on" that just encourages the bullies. Iitianeditor (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae made me aware of this discussion via my talkpage. I posted this thread on Iitianeditor's talkpage this morning about a flood of AfDs. I also alerted the relevant project to said flood. Some editors, myself being one of them, have cast doubt on this editor being a new user, which they claim to be in each of their AfD noms (example). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts it was already included in the cricket project discussion. What was the need to mention it repetitively on the talk page? Have a look at what you've started the topic by:"Hi. There's about 20 or so, starting here from yesterday, all by the same editor with the same rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)" you've needlessly started a talk page discussion so that you can try and influence the outcome which is "forum shopping" (see above). Iitianeditor (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not forum shopping at all. Infact, the AfD process encourages doing exactly what I have done. Under "Notifying related WikiProjects" it clearly states - "If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD." Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts I apologise. The link you provided gives additional context and you're right about it not violating any policy. I would like to remove my previous comments related to that. But it still doesn't excuse the attacks on my character you've made over there, which are highly offensive. The link you provided led me to the canvassing link which said what's appropriate notification and what's not. It said that I can post about it in the "village pump" if it has wider policy implications which I intend to do; just put it out here, incase it's inappropriate, someone might tell me.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I brought this here as there is no further place for that above conversation for a harassment case in the teahouse. The separate conversation was about the notability guidelines. Thank you. HeartGlow ^(talk) 17:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just been notified of this (not by the person who is obliged to notify me, mind you)- nothing I've said is wrong. It isn't racist to say that it's suspicious and unusual that an editor with three weeks experience nominating 20 cricketers all from one country. OP should WP:DROPTHESTICK, accusations against so many editors won't them very far. If people still want action, maybe checkuser the OP- most editors with strange edit patterns and a knowledge exceeding their experience tend to be sockpuppets of someone. Maybe they are too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302 I'll drop the stick after you apologize to me for trying to paint me as a biased editor. If other people aren't able to learn as much as I did in 23 days, I guess I'd have to say that I'm a quick learner. Honestly, I take it as a compliment that you're saying my knowledge exceeds my experience which shows that I've really bothered to read as many pages as I could about the internal working of Wikipedia. It seems like despite being around for a while you've been unable to learn as much as I have in 23 days, well the secret is to read the policy pages thoroughly. And the most interesting thing is that you've never once gotten into the details of my edits or ever bothered talking about anything that remotely is related to policy or all of my well researched edits. All you can do is say an unconvincing plea of "you seem to know too much for being so new". I guess this is your problem, less focus on policy and guidelines and more on random, wild accusations. You're free to do whatever check you've threatened me with. I guess this is the reward (hours of pointless argument and wild accusations and hurtful comments) I get for doing well researched policy based edits. No question on my edits, only personal attacks. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Iitianeditor: - can you confirm that this is your one and only account on WP and that you have never edited under another name or IP address? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts Yes, I can confirm this is my one and only account. I have edited Wikipedia in the past without logging in (I didn't have an account then), but it was when I had no idea how it worked and it was usually small stuff that I noticed while reading articles. Although I'm unsure as to why you care so much. And what even is the point of asking me if you're accusing me of this? I could simply lie (although I'm not, I'm am an honest person).

BOOMERANG: :@Iitianeditor:How the hell is the comment racist or a personal attack? You nominated 20+ articles for deletion, and every one was a Pakistani player, if that is 100% proof of your bias then I dont know what is! Then you start throwing baseless attacks about and accusing other editors of bad faith and much worse crimes with not one piece of evidence for your disgusting claims. I suggest a short ban for you until you realise your attitude and approach are incorrect and until you actually learn the rules of Wiki as opposed to your hubris filled claims that you do2A00:23C4:201:5F00:74BA:298E:EED7:3A8 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unable to ping you due to the complicated username. I think I'll put this to rest so that I can stop being accused of baseless bias. There's one particular editor who has created all these articles and all of them are extremely repetitive. I nominated 2 of them for deletion and they got deleted. That clearly showed community consensus for deleting such articles. Please tell me if you think it's not right to get upset when you're genuinely contributing and I don't think anyone contests that my edits were anything but helpful. It's only once the mob attacked me because they were upset things weren't going their way that I fired back. I can see you've jumped into this without understanding the context first. Have a nice day. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"It's only once the mob attacked me because they were upset things weren't going their way" - looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. There is no mob. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a rational person. You can keep doing this, although I'm exhausted. Keep picking up random sentences from what I've said and keep pasting in random links. I've anyway decided to quit Wikipedia due to the incredible stress of people saying stuff, so you can ban or whatever you want to do with me.Iitianeditor (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The best way to avoid accusations of bias is to not 100% match the actions that a biased editor would make. I've left a discretionary sanctions template on their talk page, so if the focus continues to be on deleting Pakistani people and Pakistani tribes, they can more easily be topic banned by any uninvolved admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam I've suitably justified that above. But more generally it seems like editors over here are trying to become mind readers and care about the intention more than whether helpful edits were made or not. Seems like a waste of energy. Iitianeditor (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • If an editor from India nominates 300 articles about Pakistani people and tribes for deletion, and doesn't nominate articles from any other country, would you agree that this is a problem of bias? If the number of such nominations when you start to get concerned is "n", what value of n would start to concern you? Does n_Iitianeditor=50? 100? 500? 1000? What you need to understand is that for many people here, n_average < 24. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Floquenbeam you've missed my point. Iitianeditor (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maxim, Ponyo, have you two run into anything usefully related while you were studying this editor's range? Drmies (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I think my checks there were related to spam.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, these are the reasons I believe this editor is not a new user. 1) In three short weeks they've listed a ton of AfDs. 2) Off the bat they are aware of the AfD process, the notability requirements for that subject area, and terms such as WP:BEFORE and "being bold". 3) Their use of Twinkle to do the grunt-work of deletion sorting ([[66]], [[67]]). What new user bothers with that?! 4) Their token rage-quit ("I've anyway decided to quit Wikipedia due to the incredible stress of people saying stuff...") I've shown my bit of WP:AGF with the post I made on their talkpage about mass-nominating pages. I know there's people who haven't liked my tone in the past, but I believe I've done my best to be polite and civil to this editor. If that's not the case, then please drop a note on my talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel the same way, I'm entitled to ask a question about their editing patterns. If anyone other than the OP thinks I've been out of order, then please let me know. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts the incredible way you misstate events has forced me to respond to you. Either you've done a sloppy job in your analysis or you're willfully misrepresenting facts. If you would've noticed carefully, on my talk page there is a message by an editor to use twinkle for deletion nominations. He left that message after I struggled to do it manually (which was a huge pain). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iitianeditor#Deletion_process the link since it seems like you're unwilling to actually check things and prefer to throw out wild accusations. Coming to wp:before, THAT'S LITERALLY THE FIRST THING MENTIONED ON THE PAGE WHICH TELLS US HOW TO DO DELETIONS. I can't understand why that's such a huge surprise to you. I would expect anyone with any common sense to atleast read the first paragraph of any sort of manual that gives them instructions to do stuff. Coming to my knowledge of the notability guidelines, a lot were derived from the two intial discussions which were nominated by me (they were done manually by the way) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tariq_Hafeez https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shoaib_Akram both of these were edited by other editors to bring into proper formatting and they recommended me to use twinkle for future nominations. I suggest you carefully study what I've said and stop slandering and harassing me over here. Also interesting is the fact that you've not been in favour of deleting any articles which I've nominated despite you yourself admitting that some should be deleted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts#Thanks . It look like you have a personal problem with me and just want to "win". Another point you've made is about me listing a "ton" of AfDs. Let me clue you in, they were all created by a single editor. CreativeNorth. His articles on the sportspeople were repetitive and I thus nominated all of the repetitive ones (after nominating just 2 to see the outcome, see above). I don't understand why you seem to think that that's voodoo only a super experienced guy (like you maybe?) would be able to do. Iitianeditor (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out a few things Lugnuts has said which I believe are problematic. On the deletion discussion pages, all he can seem to focus is on personally attacking me rather than focussing on the merit of the nomination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saad_Usman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farooq_Saleem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farrukh_Rizvi these are just a few of the pages (amongst many, many others including the talk page mentioned above) where you'll see his comments where Lugnuts is making baseless allegations. Just publicly defaming me. Lugnuts I humbly request you to stop repeating baseless allegations against me. Also please focus on being more neutral (you've failed to comment delete on a single nomination of mine despite you believing some will be deleted). Have a nice dayIitianeditor (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

TL/DR - "I've anyway decided to quit Wikipedia due to the incredible stress of people saying stuff..." I guess that's not true either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts when you're accused of stuff you didn't do publicly, there is a natural instinct to respond. Looks like this is the only argument you have left when your malicious intentions were exposed. "But you said you'll go away!!" Iitianeditor (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Both of you knock off the bullshit, we don't like having to deal with the LTA people her and we don;t like dealing with children either. Lugnuts, you could be a little more supportive here, you've been on here since 2006 and I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to leave useful links. Iitianeditor, when starting out at level 0/1, its best you stay away from the minefields like biography, politics, and religion articles until you've gotten some practice with wiki-topsoil, because charging in and digging is likely to result in you finding a landmine the hard way. Insofar as I can see, no one has done anything egregious enough to warrant admin intervention, although that may change in time. I'd recommend filing this one under "two wrongs don't make a right" and closing it with leave to reopen if something changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the thread, Tom, you would have seen this useful link I left on the OP's talkpage. Thanks for the personal attack too, rather than taking the concerns over a new user seriously. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Iitianeditor for 31 hours for persistent personal attacks and trumped-up charges in this thread, such as accusing Lugnuts of "malicious intentions" and Joseph2303 of calling them a racist (not true, Joseph did no such thing). Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I don't know if Drmies range request will bring anything else or not, but I've got no problem with this being closed regardless. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:39, 11 September 2020 (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.

2600:8805:A084:0:EC00:95F0:5135:B5E6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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.

---

Apologies for bringing us here, but AIV isn't working; above is a sock evading a rangeblock put on 2600:8805:A083:7100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) that's been at it for five hours with semi-automated edits, but a bot keeps misunderstanding my referral to this on AIV and removing the latter as already handled; please block the headlined range (continuing to add ages in infoboxes to non-living entities such as networks). Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 10 September 2020 (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.

Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems

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

---

In June, Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked for "failure to abide by" WP:OR and WP:RS, and just within the past 10 days, was reported (see long list of diffs showing WP:OR). As a recent example, only after I had asked twice (1 2) for a RS to support their edit, they finally obliged, only for me to point out their WP:SYNTH violations. This follows other OR commentary on Tibetan issues Or this gem in violation of how one would normally define an article's subject.

Their advocacy is particularly illuminated with this alternative facts-level unhinged commentary (CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases) on an article they admitted they had not fully read! As a numerical illustration, of the 80 references present in the revision before they began editing the page, I count 15 cited to NYT, 7 to Radio Free Asia (created as a CIA propaganda apparatus), 5 to BBC, 4 to U.S. university publishing press, 2 to the dubious Adrian Zenz, and only 1 to Xinhua.

In addition to the above documented issues, they are particularly intransigent in calling edits they disagree with "vandalism". After I warned them for that, they doubled down on their characterization. The wholly absent improvement / willingness to listen on their part suggests an editor not here to collaborate or learn. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Pasdecomplot, to the best of my recollection, you have already been advised against characterizing edits as "vandalism" during content disputes. This is disappointing. El_C 20:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Good recollection, that advice was offered here, and Girth Summit strikes me as fair. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, I can personally vouch that they are. El_C 20:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment, as I know PDC considers me to not be an ally, but for the record PDC edits on a mobile device and apparently has never edited on a desktop/laptop. I think this affects their ability to contribute in ways that don't frustrate those of us who are familiar with the web interface. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'm remembering that now. But obviously faltering by calling good faith edits "vandalism" has no bearing on that. El_C 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just FWIW —valereee (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if you would @El_C read the reverts and diffs before possibly jumping to conclusions on the vandalism. Thanks. Oh, and why is @Valereee included? Self-nomination since they are not an ally? Just curious. Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Negative. Your failure to grasp what vandalism is (as opposed to what it is not), still, has become a problem which may require administrative intervention. El_C 01:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The diffs on possible VAND weren't sufficient. Ok, my apologies. And Valereee - that editor isn't participating in this process, correct? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

More of the same here: an editor can pretend to be improving the project, thus cannot be accused of VAND. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo's issues with Conduct, WP:PA, WP:CON, approaching WP:EW, possible WP:VAN

Briefly, I attempted to work with @CaradhrasAiguo here [68], but conduct issues (refusing to read talk, refusing to respond, entrenched POV) made WP:CON impossible to achieve, despite repeated attempts here [69] and here [70].

The editor refused WP:CON but switched to WP:PA here [71] and was asked a second time to halt, here [72]

Whether or not the editor was illustrating their definition of "malicious" (see previous mobile diff) is unclear, but the editor continued reverting edits of a photo caption here [73] and again here [74] and it's RS here [75] and more. Edits to Sinicization of Tibet here [76] were removed without WP:CON or reason while the page's opening paragraphs under the photo image were returned to entrenched POV, with incorrect information and without RS. The editor then switched pages to Yarchen Gar to revert edits here [77] where their opinions about RS, that contradict their entrenched POV, became problematic and a dispute. Commonly used terms like 'forced displacement' to describe a series of events found in RS is even questioned -not on talk but in their report. The editor's report also mischaracterizes the general sequence of events.

A last attempt at WP:CON is here [78] (unfortunately subject to a late ping). The editor switched pages again to Antireligious campaigns in China, (a form of wikistalking in this case?) to continue to delete RS without WP:CON here [79] where the deleted RS quotation describes the current difficulties in gaining main stream media coverage.

I've read WP:RS and WP:WBO applies for these edits especially during this time - French Wiki uses the same sources - on related pages. Two sources which seem to disturb the editor are FreeTibet, and International Campaign for Tibet. Yet, their own lack of RS in the opening of Sinicization of Tibet does not seem to worry them. Of note, the editor chooses to mischaracterize the governmental organizations Central Tibetan Administration (here [80]) and UNESCO as "advocacy groups", and the text using UNESCO as RS was deleted here ([81] and it's RS here [82]).

The common thread connecting these issues is the documented cultural cleansing of Tibet by China, and the inclusion of the information in the pages entitled Sinicization of Tibet and Yarchen Gar. The repeated and willful deletion of balanced editing is also imo a form of WP:VAN, in that the behaviors negate the purpose of Wikipedia [83].

If a formal request to use FreeTibet and ICT is necessary to continue providing quality editing to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to submit it. Regardless, the editor CaradhrasAiguo's WP issues go far beyond the use of these two sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs)

I suggest someone may wish to merge this into the section said user made about your conduct above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The fact you triple-down on the vandalism accusation is downright astonishing, Pasdecomplot. El_C 23:57, 11 September 2020 (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.

Can we block to get attention?

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

---

If an editor is unresponsive to reverts, edit summaries, and talk page comments, can a block be used to get their attention? See User talk:108.54.69.247. It's not that he's done anything egregious, and if he just said "no, I'm not going to bother learning how to enter dashes" I'd let it go. But I think he just hasn't figured out that he's being talked to, or that he can talk back. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we routinely block to get users' attention. But with only a level-2 warning on their talk page, I'm not sure this IP is a candidate for that yet. El_C 23:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So I should keep escalating warnings? Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, he kept going after my level 3 and 4 warnings. Can you get his attention please? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The notion that an editor should be blocked for failure to use an en dash instead of a hyphen is utterly bizarre to me. I have been editing for 11 years and have never once used an en dash and have no intention of ever doing so, although I certainly do not mind if punctuation obsessives change my hyphens as they wish. I cannot understand why anyone would propose a block for such a triviality. On the broader issue, we can block for failure to communicate when actual damage to the encyclopedia is being done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

El C, what the heck are you doing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocks are preventative only. See WP:BLOCKP. That said, if an editor's disruption is of a nature that the blocking admin thinks likely to end with a shorter term block, then that is well within admin discretion. I have handed out a few 12 hour blocks where I thought that was sufficient to end problematic editing. But we don't block unless there is a serious problem with someone's behavior that can't be dealt with by lesser means. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  What is disruptive or problematic about using a hyphen in a date range? I simply cannot understand it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I conflated the IP's edits. Unblocked with apologies. Sorry for my inattention. El_C 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What's disruptive is failing to communicate, not the use of hyphens per se. This editor could probably learn to get it right if he could learn to communicate. That's why I asked about ways to get his attention. Three editors have reverted his edits and posted suggestions on his talk page (before El C). Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Failure to communicate can be an aggravating factor that can contribute to the decision to block. But it is not sufficient in itself. There needs to be an underlying level of disruption that justifies suspending their editing privileges. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Failure to communicate about utter trivialities is not a blockable offense, Dicklyon. We do not use a hammer to get somebody's attention about some lint on their shoulder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I never suggested it was an offense. I wanted to know if a block could be a usable tool in such an impasse. As for trivialities, he's creating work for othkers to fix, and he might be happy to just do it right if only we could get his attention. I do understand that it is "normal" for editors to create work for others; I do that kind of work all the time. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T240889

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T189717

Folks, they might be "failing to communicate" because mobile IP editors are not given any indication that they have new messages. None. Every message you send to an IP editor whose edits are all tagged "mobile edit" disappears into a black hole, unless they happen to switch to the desktop interface, or stumble onto their talk page by accident. In WMF-land, this is apparently a "low" priority issue. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

So what about a block? Do they get any kind of notification of that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but wikitext isn't parsed, so templates aren't expanded. So if the block reason is {{anonblock}}, that's just what the user will see. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (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.

• Technique note: It was years before I discovered that if you hold down a smartphone's hyphen key for a moment, a little menu of dashes pops up; other keys give entrée to their own hidden wonders. EEng 14:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, literally didn't know that until now (not even joking!) Glen (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I discovered it when I had the flu and my motor functions had slowed to those of a sloth. EEng 14:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't know that either. Good tip. But the problem here is that we can't give this guy tips at all. He keep editing, and I keep reverting, because I'm not ready to sign up for doing all his cleanup. Besides, everything he's adding is unsourced. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I just thought I'd pass on the tip since the opportunity presented itself. EEng 18:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dicklyon, this is a collaborative project, so, especially when it comes to exceedingly trivial things such as the lengths of horizontal lines, we all sign up to fixing them by being Wikipedia editors. If you care about such things then fix them, or else ignore them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Phil, you can't possibly mean that [84]! EEng 18:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes I care and yes I spend a lot of my time fixing them. But it would be nice if we could get the attention of an editor who adds them faster than I can fix them. I do understand that there are editors who don't care about this type of error, too. I'm not one of those. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, that works on Gboard, but not on Samsung Keyboard, in my experience. It's quite a nuisance, because for the same reason, I can't type typographical apostrophies (or whatever they're called) on my Samsung, either. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  The reasons not to buy Samsung sure pile up fast. EEng 20:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: Can I make this perfectly clear: Reverting solely because an editor is using hyphens instead of endashes is disruptive. If you are doing that then you are at risk of being sanctioned. However, if an editor is adding unsourced material and using hyphens, revert as unsourced. There is no need to mention the hyphen issue, which is not very important in the grand scheme of things. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Your opinion is indeed very clear. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  If anyone has a Mac, a neat trick I recently found by mistake: Option + - makes a –. –ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Some of us have been using that trick (and option-shift-minus for em dash) since 1984. Too bad Bill Gates never studied typography like Steve Jobs did. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent promotional and unsourced edits at Daniel Algrant

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've asked for a block of Anesiasaun (talk · contribs) several times for these edits [85]; [86]; [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]; [91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]. When they didn't like the discussion at the tea house and the rationale I gave for deleting promotional edits, they did this [98]. Multiple warnings at the user's talk page have been ignored. Again, I'm asking for a block and reversion of unsourced and promotional content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 23:21, 11 September 2020 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punta Gorda bus fight

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.

---

• PuntaGorda1 (talk · contribs)
• PuntaGorda1 (alt) (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffman12345

We need some eyes here; the creator of this article (who pulled an article about a minor school disturbance out of a blocked user's draftspace) is intent on trying to force through a keep on this article by using socks to keep the article, and is linking out the subjects and entities involved (two of whom were minors at the time) and creating a WP:BLP issue involving a case that has now been closed for fifteen years (see PG1's history, where they're linking out the three subjects), including the insertion of mugshots and Youtube links involving the story. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear admins and @Mrschimpf:, there are sources covering the fight. This one is a good example. It talks about how it overdramatize the news. Another good example is this one, which shows other school violence incidents during the 2004 - 2005 school year. It proves that those two boys attended Punta Gorda Middle School. CNN and MSNBC's Contessa Brewer covers the fight. If AC Transit Bus fight can have an article, so can the Punta Gorda bus fight. This article can be saved. There is time to edit the article and make changes to it. Copyediting would work. This article must stay. --PuntaGorda1 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2020 (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 needed on CaradhrasAiguo

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.

---

• CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 11th Panchen Lama controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's not good it's necessary to request the sanction, but CaradhrasAiguo is apparently going through this editor's contributions on pages where reports of China's cultural cleansing of Tibet are located, and reverting months of various edits by editors, based on the editor's entrenched POV, their WP:OR on various sources, while reasserting his questionable "academic" sources. The reverts continue to be bad faith, and clearly function as a form of censoring information on Wikipedia which is not part of their entrenched POV and not pro-China. This is occurring as reports by that editor and this editor have been presented here. Today, that editor deleted a BBC RS and associated edits on the abducted 11th Panchen Lama here [99] to reassert his entrenched POV aligned with "academic" Melvin Goldstein whose work is disputed by Jamyang Norbu.

(saving to edit and continue adding diffs) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

See above thread: WP:AN/I#Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems. Apart from the failure to notify, this is another attempt at deflection, and the so-called WP:OR on various sources is an unbridled violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. This edit (where there is only one mention of Norbu in the body) is yet another display of failure to grasp the summary intent of lede sections. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The diff to which Pasdecomplot is objecting is this one at 11th Panchen Lama controversy. In case Pasecomplot's complaint is hard to parse, ("censoring information on Wikipedia which is not part of their entrenched POV and not pro-China") I think Pasdecomplot is saying that CaradhrasAiguo is too pro-China. Since Pasdecomplot was warned in the earlier thread (above) about incorrect charges of vandalism, I think that a block of Pasdecomplot for WP:ASPERSIONS is very near. I will go ahead with that unless others disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No longer needed since User:Pasdecomplot has been blocked above by User:El C for 48 hours for topic ban violation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2020 (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.

UTRS requests and WP:ADMINACCT

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 Ohnoitsjamie appears to be the closing administrator for my UTRS appeal of a talk page block imposed against me on August 2, as well as for a UTRS unblock request made by one of my relatives after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7. Both UTRS requests appear to have been declined with no public discussion or explanation, and I have good-faith concerns about administrative actions relevant to the reasons they were declined. After both blocks had expired, I'd opened this account and asked for a clarification in a discussion on its talk page. Since then Ohnoitsjamie has explicitly refused to respond to me further and falsely suggested I'm a blocked sock who's created this account for the sole purpose of wasting people's time. According to WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to respond promptly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. If Ohnoitsjamie is intentionally refusing to respond to a query about administrative actions, then he or she seems to be violating WP:ADMINACCT. The following question may seem combative, but I'm asking honestly. Is it standard practice for Wikipedia administrators to make excuses for WP:ADMINACCT violations by other administrators? HistoryManUSA (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, you've created this account for the sole purpose of wasting people's time. As you have already been told: Wikipedia does not have a firm, written, set-in-stone set of rules, so if you're trying to set up a Perry Mason moment or something to get people in trouble, that's not how it works. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone looking at your contribution history can see that you're a single-purpose time-wasting account who has beaten this horse deep into the ground. All of the relevant points have already been explained to you, and I'm not obligated to share non-public comments from UTRS. Declines of repeat UTRS requests are hardly controversial. I have nothing further to add, and as you've already been warned, you should expect a WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:03, 12 September 2020 (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:INVOLVED abuse of admin privilege by administrator Neutrality

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.

---

• Richard Uihlein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Administrator Neutrality is active in adding new content to political biographies and is abusing admin privilege in own content disputes. One example, every editor trying to make improvements to WP:NPOV on the Richard Uihlein BLP is accused of being a sockpuppet and then admin Neutrality reverts the changes and orchestrates to have the users blocked. This came to my attention when I saw the debate on the Talk page for Richard Uihlein, then I made edits following all of WP rules, and then Neutrality blocked my user account and IP address for no valid reason (I am not connected with the other editors). The entry below on the BLP Noticeboard is a concise description of the content dispute. Admin Neutrality also edited the BLP Noticeboard to hide the entry:

Content that admin Neutrality is trying to hide from the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for Richard Uihlein:

There is repeated insertion of a one-sided defamatory sentence in this BLP. The New York Times source, on the other hand, includes all 3 views: 1. the author’s opinion/judgement (anti-gay), 2. the facts (battle over transgender in girls’ locker rooms), and 3. the subject’s defense (“we value diversity..”) It is essential to include all points of view that are expressed in the reference (author judgement/facts/subject official position). “Neutrality” is repeatedly blocking users who bring Neutral Point of View and balance to the BLP. Here is my proposed fix (which he/she undid). My addition was the part in italics: According to The NY Times, Uihlein has often supported efforts in opposition to gay and transgender rights, citing an example of Uihlein supporting a school board candidate who fought a move allowing transgender students in girls’ locker rooms. Uihlein denied this characterization, stating in the same article “We value diversity in our community and at Uline.”[4] 2605:E000:1316:C889:5C35:948B:1B3F:540D (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:INVOLVED,

Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanctions or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

       Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.180.80.230 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whey77. Acroterion (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(nac) Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand? Perchance nay; it seemeth to be curved, and fashioned of exotic wood. Mayhap 'twas brought to our fair land by some sunscorch'd voyager, Time-bent by sailing cross many a weary sea. Narky Blert (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The truth, then, is that the satellite fading here is Phobos, that those footprints are your own, that 'there is no sea here, that you have crashed and are killed and will in a moment be dead.The Man Who Lost the Sea, Theodore Sturgeon --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Shamelessly, not to say untimely, ripp'd from an original idea by Kilgore Trout. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, so happy to see the correct Kilgore Trout reference there. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I would note that in any case the only administrative tool Neutrality has used that I'm aware of, was to protect the page back on 3 September. AFAIK, the accounts and IPs have all been blocked by someone else, as too the recent page protection. Reverting or otherwise making edits on non fully protected page, reporting someone to SPI, deleting or archiving noticeboard comments etc do not involved administrative tools. I've done them all myself despite never having been an administrator. So by definition, Neutrality cannot have misused administrative tools in this dispute with the possible exception of that single page protection. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As a probably final comment, beyond admitting sockpuppetry and all that jazz, a good way to discredit yourself is to completely miss or ignore the big warnings which tell you to notify the editor you're complaining about. I've done it for you, but if you have a legitimate complaint in the future, you'll do well to ensure this isn't necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whey77 tells us everything you need to know. This is a admitted sockpuppet user (and/or a meatpuppet/off-wiki-coordinated ring), probably with an conflict of interest, that has the stated goal of whitewashing an article. In addition to abusively using multiple accounts and probably violating our COI policy, the various sockpuppets and IP addresses have also been notably dishonest (for example, they have claimed that citations do not support text when it plainly does). The only admin action I've taken is to protect the page from abusive sockpuppetry (which other admins have also done). I agree with Narky Blert and others that a swift boomerang is necessary here, and ask for a swift close. Best regards, Neutrality^talk 22:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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 Rdvr and an IP user have both inserted text into the article 1946 Pilbara strike that implies that they intend to – or have already taken – legal action against the WMF or individual editors. See [100][101]. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 13 September 2020 (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.

Jamesgtmoore

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.

---

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

WP:SPA dedicated to anything related to Billy Meier, specializing in arguing for inclusion of fringe POV and edit warring for same. Recently making serious accusations that editors are working for the CIA: [102], [103]. Demonstrably WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

While being an SPA is not in and of itself reason for a block, accusing people of being in the CIA and asking they be checkusered to confirm that[104] isn't something that really suggests someone is here to maintain a neutral encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough about the fringe POV, I just wanted to make the article show some positive information and not just "the guys a fraud nothing to see here" approach. If the ex-USAF Lt Col Wendelle Stevens, who investigated Billy Meier, is not a WP:RS then I've totally had enough of Wikipedia as a WP:RS itself and it also wouldn't surprise me if Wikipedia itself was run by the CIA! He who controls the information, controls the world. If you ban me then that pretty much confirms it. --Jamesgtmoore (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I've enacted a partial block to prevent you from disrupting the Billy Meier article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Have a good day CIA lackey. You're doing the human race a disservice with your poor judgement in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgtmoore (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks and the conspiracy theorising. We're not going to entertain either. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 01:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you start chipping in, Jéské? Are you some kind of supervisor? Anyway, its fine I already made a better version of your Billy Meier page here: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/ . Enjoy maintaining your mass media mind control website until one day you lie in your bed dying and think back regretting that you didn't make the Billy Meier wikipedia page more neutral for humanities sake because then we would have achieved world peace and interstellar travel centuries earlier. LOL 01:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgtmoore (talk • contribs)

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 users

I strongly believe that Xerxes931 (talk · contribs) and شاه عباس (talk · contribs) have been canvassing and coordinating edits off wiki. Both users have a history of being problematic as shown by their talk pages (from which they have made sure to remove any warnings) histories. Both accounts were registered on Wikipedia within three months of each other, at the end of 2018. However, User:شاه عباس's first edit, which was made two weeks ago on 28 August 2020, appears to be made to support User:Xerxes931's point of view in a talk page discussion, just like a few other of his very few edits that followed Xerxes931's edits. شاه عباس started an RFC after Xerxes931's and his attempts to push their POV in another article failed, and quite as you would expect, Xerxes931 dropped in to hastily support the proposed edits and (obviously) asserted the OP's "neutral" POV (I do think they are anti-British, at least). Both of the users were earlier made the subjects of a sockpuppet investigation [105], which was closed as unrelated. There is still a slight possibility of them being carefully managed sockpuppets. Nevertheless, it simply adds to their history of being disruptive and slightly dickish. And they sure do not understand how Wikipedia exactly works (such as the talk page guidelines), considering they have been registered for two years and one of them is an extended confirmed user. Idell (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Baseless accusations are seemingly common among people here. You are referring to the vandalism you committed on my talk page, I assume? Are you trying to self-fulfill your own prophecies by presenting them as something to look critically at? I did not report your vandalism because I didn't view it as worthwhile. It is laughable that your inability to present *ANY* valid argument in regards to the actual topic of discussion has brought you to throw ad hominem almost immediately. I suggest you delete this accusation before you are proven wrong by the admin team. As you said there was already a sockpuppet investigation and it was futile, but that was to be expected as it was just like this in its nature: a pathetic attempt to win a dispute without being attentive to the actual dispute. Xerxes931 (talk · contribs) and myself have no connection, we are not from the same country or ethnicity. There is NO reasonable justification for accusing us of working together. Keep in mind that this is a public encyclopedia, not a sort of social medium for creating "drama". Either support your case, or abstain from participating in discussion. If you think vandalism and baseless accusations will win you anything, you are wrong, and I hope the admins show you the correct way of engaging in *intellectual* (and not personal) disputes. شاه عباس (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• User:Idell, Bradv closed that SPI; you are not bringing anything new here, nor are these accusations presenting new evidence. "A slight possibility of them being carefully managed sockpuppets"--yes, and there is a slight possibility that you know all these things better than Bradv. That they do not, supposedly, know how Wikipedia works is evidence against your socking claim. شاه عباس, no need to get so angry here if you are convinced the truth will set you free, though I understand that you're offended by what to me seem like false accusations. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I’m bringing a possible case of meat puppetry, piggybacking, stealth canvassing and use of sleeper account(s). I and many others have found the users to be a huge nuisance. Their disruptive behaviour might warrant a tban. I even removed the page that they want to push their POV at from my watchlist, while these users have repeatedly tried to drag me into the argument (which they seem to be losing now). So I’m offended by you accusing me of making false accusations. I’ve been nice and merely tried to follow best practices. I humbly ask you to look into my "accusations" as I believe myself to have made them in good faith, based on their contribution histories. But please, do educate them, possibly in a better way than how many Wikipedians have tried to do. And sir, I’d like to retire myself from this thread so feel free to close it, immediately. Idell (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I humbly ask you to not raise old matters without new evidence. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"I and many others have found the users to be a huge nuisance" which other users? I assume "nuisance" here just means not conforming to your desire to have your personal beliefs on an encyclopedia. "I’ve been nice and merely tried to follow best practices." then why did you vandalise my talk page instead of going directly to a third party for mediation? However I do salute you on wanting to follow my advice and end this absurd thread that has been hitherto based on nothing factual or reasonable. Reminder for future practices: do not initiate claims based on prejudice and superstition. Believing that there is a conspiracy against you is not evidence. شاه عباس (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: As I’ve already mentioned beforehand, their newer edit warring, the discussion at the RFC, etc. are pieces of new evidence. Both their disregard of guidelines is suggestive of disruptive editing and either just a coincidence like everything else or a pattern. Also take note of both their disregard of talk page warnings; piggybacking on each other to make edits, before, as a last resort, agreeing to talk things out; removal of all talk page warnings and false accusations of vandalism; all combined. But thanks for the humble advice, duly noted! Idell (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I need a favor: compile a list of the all the related socks you suspect are working together. I have a hypothesis here, but I need the accounts, editing histories, and time to investigate my theory. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Miserlou

Relating to a BLP article Alan Dershowitz that is subject to subject to WP:A/I/PIA, user Miserlou has violated the 1RR within 24 hours and doesnt self revert. User continues POV pushing on talk after notice.

• 16:51, 8 September 2020 1st revert

• 14:14, 9 September 2020 2nd revert

• 21:43, 9 September 2020 I have notified the user of WP:DS in this diff.

• 22:23, 9 September 2020 acknowledges DS notice but continues on talk page POV pushing rather than self reverting.

Request an admin to have a look. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The user is not making edits related to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: If the article is under 1RR (which this is) it doesn't matter what the edits are, surely? Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

If that's how it works, okay, I was just going by the type of sanctions cited. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I honestly feel like the user Jtbobwaysf is using administrative procedures to bully and gaslight me. The issue is the phrasing of a single sentence which has nothing to do with Israel (I don't even understand the connection). I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and have never heard of this "24 hour" rule before and certainly didn't mean to violate it. You'll also note that this was only escalated _after_ I made my case for the revertion on the discussion page, not when it occurred. Is he really upset that I made the edits twenty two rather than twenty four hours apart? What is my "POV" other than trying to make a single sentence - with citation - more accurate? And what does any of this have to do with Israel (I've never mentioned that and have no interest in that). This is so weird. Miserlou (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Miserlou, The article is under 1RR. You understand that, right? And you won't revert again? You can start an RfC on Talk if you like. If you revert again you'll be blocked. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters persistently removing talk page discussions

B. M. L. Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received a level 4 warning on 20:49, 17 July 2020 about removing discussions from article talk pages. When they did this again on 09:34, 7 September 2020, I left them another final warning. Yesterday they removed two discussion threads from Talk:List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, can something be done about this disruptive editor please? FDW777 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, blocked them 48 hours for disruptive editing, let's see if that will convince them to engage. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor mass-moving articles without discussion, then nominating resulting redirects for deletion with a misleading rationale

GPinkerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is moving numerous articles about politicians to remove Scottish/English etc and replace it with British. He is then "fixing" links to the resulting redirects, contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN, and nominating the redirects for deletion with the rationale that they are not linked to. I think this behaviour is disruptive and unhelpful. Such a programme of renaming should be done via Requested Moves, and the unlinking and deletion nominations seem at best designed to muddy the waters. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please provide exact diffs of precisely what you are objecting to and explain why you believe these changes to be "disruptive and unhelpful". My changes are not contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN, which states that It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates and It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading., which both apply in all or nearly all these instances. GPinkerton (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring whether the move and the changes of the links were needed or not; the deletion nominations are completely wrong. John Edwards (British Labour politician) was at John Edwards (English politician) first, and then at John Edwards (English Labour politician) since January 2015. That title was not wrong or misleading and doesn't need deletion, no matter if it is now unlinked or not. This matches nothing in WP:RFD#DELETE, and is not some exception which would benefit from deletion. The same goes for e.g. Charles Waterhouse (English politician), a completely unobjectionable redirect which had existed since 2009. Fram (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: The John Edwards one is especially egregious and misleading because there is not and never has been any such thing as an "English Labour" Party, and if there were it would not be appropriate for a Labour Party MP. How is it unobjectionable? It's misleading and wrong, and not supported by sources. GPinkerton (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

never has been any such thing as an "English Labour" Party

It's hard to say whether that misreading is deliberate or not, given how oh-so-wrong it is. Helpful hints: "English Labour politician" has one subject/noun ("politician") modified by two separate adjectives/adjectival nouns ("English" and "Labour"). It could also be written as "Labour politician who is English" or "English politician who is a member of the Labour Party")

Also, by your logic, there's also no such thing as the "British Labour Party" -- at least according to Labour Party (UK) -- so your usage, if you're employing the same logic, is equally wrong. So yeah, someone is being misleading. --Calton | Talk 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: So move it. No-one disagrees he was in the Labour Party, and no-one denies he was a British politician. If you can come up with a less misleading, less ambiguous, and shorter name, go ahead. It's the entirely unsourced and misleading interpolation of "English" I object to. It's worth noting that while English Labour Party is not a thing on Wikipedia, (or elsewhere) British Labour Party naturally redirects to Labour Party (UK), exactly as it should. GPinkerton (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To follow Calton's logic, one can see why it's quite normal to see why one can have a British Labour Party: a "Labour Party" which is the subject/noun of the adjective "British". One cannot have an "English Labour Party": there is no "Labour Party" to which the adjective "English" can reasonably refer. It follows from this that a party which does not exist cannot have members, while one that does must. GPinkerton (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That line of thinking has more twists than a pretzel. Sounds like you're more interested in making a WP:POINT than anything else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't see that. What point would that be? What part is hard to follow? (I've fixed some typos.) If you're just saying that this line of reasoning supporting "English Labour" is illogical, then I agree. GPinkerton (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

So move it. Not my job, yours: I'm just pointing that your claimed rationale for your action was bogus.

no-one denies he was a British politician Not the issue at all, is it? Hint: the word you swapped out, perhaps thinking no one would notice, is "English".

To follow Calton's logic.., Repeating your error and trying to claim that it attaches to me isn't your best move. --Calton | Talk 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: The word English does not appear in the article or the sources. Its inclusion in the article is OR. You have demonstrated only your opinion of my motivation, and your comments fall far short of substantiating your aspersions of an ulterior motive. I say again, no-one denies he was British and a British politician active in British politics. The fact an old article title described him as "English Labour" is no kind of proof of your allegation that my claimed rationale for your action was bogus. I suggest you retract your assertions. GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Experienced hands will know that before too long a Scottish editor is likely to re-Scottify all these anyway, so it is wasted effort. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That may be, but without sources they'd be in the wrong so to do. It's also wrong to assume Scots don't understand sourcing rules ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep on track please people! Cutting to the chase here - the mass moving of articles is disruptive, and the nomination of redirects even more so. That's it. I suggest the RFDs are all closed as 'speedy keep', the page moves are reverted, and that GPinkerton is trouted and warned not to do anything like this ever again. GiantSnowman 21:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How are they disruptive and why should they be reverted? Surely the WP:BURDEN is on those who claim the original titles are better. Otherwise there's no reason to move them back. No-one seems to be saying the original titles meet the relevant policies, only that tradition should somehow outweigh the standing policies. GPinkerton (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change an article name, use WP:RM and get consensus. Arguments over whether somebody/something should be described as 'English' or 'British' or 'British' or 'English' can be made on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 21:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

...is the correct answer. We'd have to use mass rollback on all the link changes, though, there are hundreds. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this not count as what is described as what is described in the WP:RM lead?

"Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. ... A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus."

To me it looks as though these basically uncontroversial moves (which in themselves are as yet objected to) follow the guidance laid out on whatever page deals with this particular flag issue: that explicitly British Westminster politicians should be described as such, and those explicitly belonging to one of the nations are best described accordingly. This is often already the case in the opening sentence of the articles, which if I'm not wrong all deal with MPs elected to one-nation-type tickets, just as we describe Gordon Brown as British and Alex Salmond as Scottish. I would urge that each page move be considered on its own merits; I maintain that these are not objectionable changes considering the content and subjects of the articles. It is possible that some of these are more controversial than others, though most are very obscure, and one or two I also expanded somewhat, but others are free to disagree and make changes as appropriate; rather than just changing everything for the sake of it, I appeal to all to vet the changes individually and see whether it's not in fact an improvement in each case! If the redirects will still work even if the articles are moved back, then why the need to change them? GPinkerton (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No move from "Scottish" to "British" or "English" can ever be regarded as "uncontroversial". You have your opinions; others have theirs. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If neither the article text nor the sources cited describe an MP's nationality, and that MP is elected on a platform and to a party whose identity was specifically and explicitly British, and we know that such a person is exclusively notable for being in British politics and being elected to the British HoC, I really don't see what's controversial in these instances, in most of which the article did not breathe a word about them being anything other than British. Most of these articles have not had more than a few edits in the past decade and more. Many of their titles are legacies of Wikipedia adolescence, when naming policies were casual and editors free ...(apparently). GPinkerton (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to judging if a move is "uncontroversial", the point is not whether you can see any issues, but whether it is in an area where experience (which, ok, you don't have) shows that other people are likely to disagree, however unreasonable that may appear to you and anyone else. So, best to go to WP:RM and find out. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mass moves are on the extreme side of WP:BOLD, and the whole point of BOLD is that when someone raises an objection you back down and discuss before continuing. It is very clear that people have now objected to the mass move, so they have to be undone for now. Arguing that you can go down a line of articles making rapid-fire mass edits to a wide variety of pages and that people who disagree must individually contest each one is absurd - any sort of seriously controversial mass edit needs to be discouraged and go back to WP:QUO when someone objects due to how disruptive it can be. Otherwise, people would be encouraged to aggressively mass edit stuff towards their preferred version in hopes that nobody will want to do the much more involved legwork of contesting each one and that they can therefore push their changes through as a fait accompli. Naturally when you make a mass edit and someone questions your underlying rationale, every page you moved is under dispute and must immediately go back to the old name until you've put them through RMs. If you genuinely still think this mass action is uncontroversial despite numerous people telling you otherwise, hold some sort of RFC in a centralized discussion location and await your SNOW approval (which obviously will not be forthcoming at this point - come on!) --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please discuss at Talk:John Edwards (English Labour politician) and Talk:Walter Elliot (Scottish politician). It is true that some have objected in principle but so far no-one has raised any arguments based on the articles or their subjects themselves. Anyway, they have been moved back, although one has now been moved to a new and even more misleading title without discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• GPinkerton seems to do fine editing in other topic areas. I think that if they hold themself to agreeing not to move Scottish/British/English articles without prior established consensus (such as a WP:RM), then we'd be fine here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have moved a number of the articles back to their original locations; GPinkerton is quite welcome to open an RM request for them. I believe some of the Scottish ones to have been particularly problematic; XXX (Unionist politican) is actively misleading for a British politician, as the better known Unionist parties are Northern Irish. I have also closed the RfDs. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

the better known Unionist parties are Northern Irish That's just not true. The governing party in the UK is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and they arose from the merger of the Conservatives and the Unionist Party, the party to which these MPs belonged. In any case it's irrelevant, it can't possibly be misleading; the name of the party was "Unionist". Ireland doesn't come into it and even if it did, avowedly unionist MPs from Ireland would surely best be described as British MPs? I don't see anything particularly problematic or actively misleading. @Black Kite: can you please be specific about which you have moved? GPinkerton (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No; if you hear the phrase "Unionist politician" in relation to British politics, unless the subject is Scottish devolution you are almost always talking about Northern Ireland these days. At the very least, it's unclear. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment at all. Unless the subject is Northern Ireland, the phrase "unionist politician" (small u) refers to politicians in the camp opposing the nationalist politicians (i.e. the SNP and the Scottish Greens) in Great Britain. Furthermore, not only was the Unionist Party the dominant party of Scotland for most of the 20th century and had far more MPs than any other "Unionist" (big u) party has ever had. "Scottish Unionist" is a different thing altogether; describing Unionist Party MPs as "Scottish Unionist MPs" is not only unclear, it's downright wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind; I found them. Something has gone wrong with the talk page of Walter Elliot (Scottish politician). Please rectify! GPinkerton (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If one was a member of the British Parliament & a member of a British political party. Wouldn't that make one a British politician? GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

English/British is a prime example of a situation that is controversial despite what an uninformed editor might believe. If they continue to insist on this after an ANI thread where they are informed otherwise, a block may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• These are highly controversial and disruptive moves. Disam labels should only be used in specific circumstances and "English Labour Party" is certainly not one of those. We will need to stop this from happening any further, the moves and subsequent funny business is unnecessary and against policy. doktorb _words^deeds 05:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Please discuss at: Talk:John Edwards (English Labour politician) and Talk:Walter Elliot (Scottish politician) for the relevant Request Moves. GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  @GPinkerton: Do you agree to wait for consensus from now on before moving articles and changing links? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem with MilfordBoy1991...

"Please never refer to another human being as "It"

MilfordBoy1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Milfordboy1991's edits in Beethoven's 2nd (film) have been problematic and unnecessary. This editor wants to refer to Taylor Devereaux by his surname alone (just because of attempted sexual assault), which no one ever does in the film. And the name of the associate who ran the lakefront house in the film also is irrelevant, as it has absolutely no bearing on the film whatsoever. But Milfordboy1991 refuses to comply, just because they think I was the only one who disagrees with them. DawgDeputy (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DawgDeputy. Please never refer to another human being as "it". That is insulting and dehumanizing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Even Donald Trump? EEng 03:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you said "human being". Carry on. EEng 03:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I also notice that you have not discussed this matter at Talk:Beethoven's 2nd (film). Why is that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That is what Milfordboy1991 should have considered in the first place rather than ignore my edit summaries and simply remake their unnecessary submissions. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I started the discussion at the talk page. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DawgDeputy, if you do not know an editor's preferred pronouns, then refer to them by their username, or as "the editor", or by using the singular they, as I have done here. Never call another editor "it" again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Range block needed

I'm not experienced with range blocks. Could someone please help with this? Thank you.

• 49.144.130.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.144.138.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.144.138.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.144.137.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.144.137.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done: 49.144.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Temperament and name call isues of Adityabill2001

So, this started with this revert [106] of mine at Kolkata Airport, which was perfectly inline with this discussion on the article's talk page here (although at that point I was unaware of the discussion) on August 21. Adityabill2001 comes to my talk page and repeatedly and calls me nepotist mafia . I did try to reason with them and tell them to take criticism (warnings/talk page discussions) in the right manner, continue editing and maintain civility but to no avail the user continued with the temperament and nepotist mafia name calls. I discussed the issue with my NPPS Instructor (Barkeep49) , on my course page. Barkeep gave suggestions on how to deal with a situation like this. I followed Barkeep's instructions and gave a calm reply to Adityabill2001 on my talk page, which went well and everything was over and the user and I had no further interaction until today, when I reverted this edit of Aditya [107] and left an edit summary why I did so , he came to my talk page (after reverting my edit) in decent manner, and I tried to reason with him again but he started saying things like "hope this satisfies you" and I explained to them that its not about satisfying me but policy/consistency and that they could bring it up on the articles talk. They reply you will understand nothing which prompted me to give one last reply before closing the discussion telling them to read policies and wished them happy editing. Before I could close it they reply Bhai, chor de iss baat ko. Tere se nahi hoga (translation hi: Dude, you leave it you can't comprehend this). Honestly, I did not want to bring this to ANI (as I mentioned to Barkeep on my course page) but this name calling business is probably going way too far. Bingobro (Chat) 08:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Just had to revert another edit. Earlier this year they also were edit warring and trying to change the main photo despite clear consensus on the talk page. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The user was blocked for being ignorant and edit warring. He was also rude to me, regarding the infobox image thing. Berrely informed me about this report and saw he went against the talkpage consensus oof the infobox image again. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha:, @Berrely: I just got this on my tak page [108], by another user who had been adding the flight on the CCU article. I and Prolix had AGF reverted the users edit. Strange thing is no interaction when I reverted it or when Prolix reverted it but as soon as Adityabill2001 is no longer editing, User:NilInfinite has gone to my talk page, Prolix's talk and Berrely's talk page too. A sock perhaps? Bingobro (Chat) 09:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Bingobro, yeah I was about to ask them that, quite likely, but there isn't sufficient evidence. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely:I find it weird that Aditya goes against clear consensus, gets blocked for edit warring, was rude to Saha, continues disruptive editing and namecalls along with reverts but we're supposedly the "nepotist wikipedia mafia" . Bingobro (Chat) 10:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again adding unsourced content. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I didn't see this sooner. I have warned the user for the attacks they made on September 5. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: No worries for not seeing this sooner. Altgough the user has very conveniently removed the warning from their talk. Bingobro (Chat) 05:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Any admin who comes there will look in the history. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC).

Report on troll account

Ngyk198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user tried to cast aspersions on my edits when I had to revert an edit on the 2020 Singapore circuit breaker measures, which was done because the information inserted by an IP user was not confirmed by either Singapore or UK governments, as well as in news reports. Please review this, the account has been recently created, might be suspicious. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What reason is there to believe this isn't just an involved IP who created a username account in good faith? That said, I agree that the comment itself is, at the very least, too terse to be useful. But, key here is that this article's talk page is, at this moment, blank. An effort to engage problems there ought to be the first step, while alerting the noticeboard should be the last (so as to be considered "intractable"). El_C 20:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, you calling a person a troll based on a single critical remark is definitely "casting aspersions". Plus this comment was made over five days ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess that report is withdrawn. If that account isn't a troll, then what does this account do other than just post a single remark? Surely there's more than meets the eye? I checked the log and found just this comment. I would like to find out. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

images that take up a lot of space

User:Shyamal removed a large composite image, arguing it took up too much space. My argument is that it is very valuable and space should not be a consideration. The discussion is here [:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shyamal#Bronze-winged_jacana]. We are not edit-warring, but we both think an independent opinion would be valuable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We do have a specialized notice board for that. If that does not help, try dispute resolution notice board. Content disputes are not handled here. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor against consensus

ItsTimeToGo (talk · contribs) and a prior IP address keep reintroducing a fork of New York City Subway rolling stock at A Division (New York City Subway) and B Division (New York City Subway). They have been reverted by myself and three other users so far, but ItsTimeToGo has not started a discussion justifying their edits. The user should at the very least be blocked for WP:3RR. Cards84664 18:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• If there is an edit war the place to report that is on the warring board. Wm335td (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page being bombed by multiple WP:SPAs at Hooyah

Overflow from the article. I don't know if the appropriate action is a page lock or smoking out a mass of sock or meatpuppets, but it looks like orchestrated disruption. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• See also blocked AT1(AW)Howell (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, clear single-purpose meatpuppets trying to advance a silly made-up story. I'd already blocked the first range] and this account, which was created immediately after the range was given a final warning. Thanks to User:331dot for removing TPA on that time-wasting talk page. I'll leave it to others to decide of the additional meatpuppets should be blocked, and/or whether the talk page should be protected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the two recent SPAs as sock/meatpuppets. Any more and we might want to consider protecting the talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

archived without closure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#Stayfree76 was archived without being closed. Could we get closure? It's an ongoing issue. —valereee (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears there was nascent support for a topic ban. I'd add my support for at least a temporary topic ban until that user has more experience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Two questions about partial blocking

• Is it possible to block all pages with one or two exceptions? In the past we have temporarily unblocked users so they can comment at ANI or arbcom. Could we just unblock them for the one page and leave them blocked for all other pages? Or doesn't the software allow "block everything but X and Y"?

• We sometimes get an IP that keeps vandalizing one particular page, and in such cases blocks are kept short because a new person may end up with that IP. If we gave the IP a partial block, would that make a lengthy block more palatable? For example, assume that IP 203.0.113.127 keeps vandalizing Black helicopter.^[109] We normally wouldn't block IP 203.0.113.127 for a year or two because then someone new using that IP couldn't edit Wikipedia. But if we only blocked IP 203.0.113.127 from editing the black helicopter page for a year or two the chances that the new user of that IP might try to edit that particular page are vanishingly small.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• On your second point, I think yes, longer partial blocks are reasonable, though not sure if any formal guidance exists. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems like something worth trying. Partial blocks can be altered in duration, just like full blocks. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've applied partial blocks to IP editors from editing certain pages, and for significantly longer that I would've for a site-block. I agree that if the IP changes hands, and if the new recipient of the dynamic IP happens to edit (low chance), the probability of them editing the exact pages that the IP is partially-blocked from is significantly low - near 0. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• (1) Partial blocks can only prevent editing of (up to 10) specific pages or a namespace; see WP:PBLOCK. (2) It could be done. It’s a judgement call of course, likely only after other means of protecting the page from the IP have proved ineffective. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5's statement on the limitation of partial-blocking (up to 10 specific pages) is correct. Like I said above, I've partially blocked IP editors from specific pages before and with a much longer duration than I would've applied with a site-wide block, and I see no problem with doing so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: While it is not currently possible to block from all but one or two pages you could potentially block from all namespaces except for example Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and User talk. This has been done before so there is precedent. As for your second question, that has sometimes been done but usually as an alternative to a sitewide block of the same duration e.g. this mobile range. Best 68.192.87.152 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Anthony Burke Ireland

Could someone reign in Anthony Burke Ireland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? He's currently going on disruptive edit wars across numerous articles claiming There is no such place as southern Ireland and never has been, even when editing articles such as Southern Ireland (1921–22) and Parliament of Southern Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, blocking now. I could probably include some ArbCom sanction, but treat it as a standard indef for nationalist ranting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on categories of people from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

User:IslamMyLoveMyLife has only been editing on WP since 1 September but since that time he has been causing severe disruption every day on categories to do with people from the Bible. He continually creates new categories such as Muslim saints from the Old Testament,Muslim saints from the New Testament, Islamic figures from the Torah and Psalms,Muslim female saints from the Old Testament,Medieval Islamic preachers,Early Islamic preachers, on and on, and fills them up with names of characters or persons from the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament when the article the category is put on does not make any claim that the person is a saint or the category is just plain wrong.

A few examples out of very very many - he put Paul the Apostle into a category he created, "Medieval Islamic Preachers" [110], John the Baptist into another category of his making "Muslim saints from the Old Testament" [111] and St Peter into a category he made "Islamic personalities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible" ("Old Testament") [112]. Weirdly, he has put Goliath into categories he created,"Muslim saints from the Old Testament" [113], "Islamic figures from the Torah and Psalms"[114], and "Early Islamic Preachers" (!) [115]. This, of course, is a character in a folk tale, a villainous giant who is in no way a saint or preacher and I cannot see how he can be considered "Islamic". Many of the categories he has created have had to be deleted and a lot of time spent trying to correct many ludicrous errors.Numerous editors have expressed concerns, warned him for disruption and edit warring and asked him to stop creating categories on his talk page but he pays no attention and just carries on as before creating new categories.

I pointed out to him on his talk page "per guidelines WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. These prophets and people from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament should not be put into a category "Muslim saints" unless the article explicitly states with sources that Islam has made them saints. According to Wali the Salafi movement, Wahhabism, and Islamic Modernism, all three of which have, to a greater or lesser degree, "formed a front against the veneration and theory of saints". So that's millions of Muslims who do not even accept the concept of "Muslim saints",never mind retroactively applying the term to pre-Islamic characters in stories a lot of which have no historical basis, or people who were certainly Jewish or Christian and not Muslim at all."

I had removed Eve from his category "Muslim female saints" but he put it back in again with the edit summary "Read "Religious views#Islam" [116], a section which does not say anything about her being a "Muslim saint". We are not trying to remove these articles from any categories involving Islam, as Marcocapelle told the editor on their talk page "there is no need for 7 categories. Two is enough, for Hebrew Bible people in Islam and for New Testament people in Islam."

I would support the editor being indeffed under WP:CIR, he doesn't seem to understand what the word "medieval" means, as he put not only Paul the Apostle but also Elizabeth (biblical figure), Isaiah‎, Jeremiah and other utterly ridiculous ones into his category "Medieval Islamic preachers". I suppose however that going straight to an indefinite ban would be too drastic. I think he should be topic banned at least from creating or populating categories that deal in any way with persons or characters from the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. He doesn't know a thing about those topics, he thinks the Bible says that Adam and Eve were Christians [117] and that Jesus' disciples appear in the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament") [118]. If he would show signs of listening to what experienced editors are telling him and stop the disruption I would not ask for any sanction at all but I see no signs of that occurring,Smeat75 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, please add some paragraph breaks. No one is going to read this wall of text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Done.Smeat75 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a report I was going to make; I was waiting to see if warnings would be heeded, but the tagging continued unabated. "Saint" is more or less broad category, even within Christainity, but especially in Islam, where it can be translation or approximation of a number of ideas. Eve can even be considered a Christian saint, as can Jesus ("St Saviour") and abstract things like Peace ("St Irene") and Wisdom ("St Sophia"), and I have sympathies with the idea of giving Biblical characters equal weight to their Koranic cognates, but really this is incompetent. Note to Marcocapelle there is the potential for two categories to be appropriate, as some "Biblical" people appear in the Koran and some are venerated in Islam, but some do not appear in the Koran and are venerated in Islam for other reasons. So there's cope for many of these articles being "in the Koran" and "in Islam" or only one of these. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It's news to me that John the Baptist is mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. Or that St Peter is mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. And the rest. There's a strong odour of WP:CIR about such edits. Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There's an example of a New Testament Islamic figure who's not in the Koran (to my knowledge) but whose sainted head is buried under a column in the Great Mosque of Damascus ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In the main discussion, IslamMyLoveMyLife admits their WP:POINTy behaviour: because of the existence of Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament they started to create a similarly named Muslim category, rather than proposing to change the root cause of their frustration. Because of the repetitive nature of the disruption (see User talk:IslamMyLoveMyLife to get an overview of all similar categories they created in a very short period of time that have been nominated for deletion) and because of their ignoring a warning to stop (see User_talk:IslamMyLoveMyLife#Creating_new_categories), I agree with Smeat75 that a topic ban would be justified. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I could be misunderstanding you, but that figure, known in Arabic as "Yahya" (عليه السلام), is most certainly in the Qur'an. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake. Still, that's him more as prophetic wunderkind than the decapitated ascetic with multiple relic heads. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User:IslamMyLoveMyLife is actively editing (arguing about the same things he has argued about every day) but has not responded to this report. Do notifications work if a user has not created a user page? @IslamMyLoveMyLife: I recommend you participate in this discussion if you want to try to avoid a block or ban.Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

He unilaterally altered a category title from " Islamic religious leaders" to "Muslim religious workers" with an edit summary "many of them were not the Religious leader".[119] Edit warring as he is reversing the reversion by Marcocapelle.Smeat75 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: I humbly request you to stop it, If you can categorize Adam, Eve, John the Baptist and the other Abrahamic figures as only the Christian and the Jew, you should also add an Islamic category and please don't forget that many of the Prophets and figures i have mentioned in the Islamic categories are even buried in Islamic mosques and cemeteries. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick check at Category:Adam and Eve, and they are in an Islamic category as well as the Jewish and Christian categories. @IslamMyLoveMyLife: If there is an omission of a category in the article for John the Baptist or other individuals, it may be a good idea for you to ask at the article's talk page about putting it into a category and get assistance with the placement. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Who said there is no Quranic category here? I mean, in terms of categories, they're just called them Jews and Christian saints, when i created the Category:Muslim saints from the Old Testament Þjarkur considered it for renaming, no one considered Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament for renaming. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@IslamMyLoveMyLife: You said it, just above. "If you can categorize Adam, Eve...as only the Christian and the Jew, you should also add an Islamic category...." There is already an Islamic category present. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We are not trying to remove these articles from categories to do with Islam. We are objecting to creation of unnecessary categories. I am saying that someone who thinks the Bible calls Adam and Eve Christians and that John the Baptist features in the Old Testament, etc., should not be editing in this topic area. Smeat75 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

IslamMyLoveMyLife, categorization should reflect the contents of the article. Several of the articles you added in categories do not mention status as either a saint or a prophet. Goliath, for example. If you think material is missing from the articles, you should suggest additions to the article's contents. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Considering the edit history and the username, it makes me wonder if this editor is WP:HERE for the encyclopedia in general. @IslamMyLoveMyLife: would you agree to stop working with categories for now and to perhaps change the focus like improving the Prophets and messengers in Islam article if necessary? My impression is that continuing to disruptively edit risks resulting in a general topic ban from Muslim topics or an eventual WP:NOTHERE block for advocacy. Also, are there other topics you would be interested to edit on Wikipedia? If so, moving on to show that you are not only on Wikipedia to advocate would be a good initiative. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• I would support either a topic ban or a wp:NOTHERE and wp:CIR. Consider that he added Ishmael to category "Early Islamic Preachers"[120] as well as Enoch (ancestor of Noah) [121], two figures who were not preachers, nor around during the time of early Islam (if they existed). This is a pretty clear case of just general incompetence that is unlikely to suddenly stop. If he doesn't understand what "early Islamic" or "preacher" means today, he's unlikely to suddenly start editing competently later.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Another ludicrous example - He categorized Og, a Biblical monstrous giant slain by the Israelites as a "Muslim saint" [122], then in his "Early Islamic preachers" category [123], then in another category he created "Pre-Muslim saints" [124] and when I or other editors took them out of these utterly absurd categories he edit warred them back in again. This is beyond incompetence, it is a joke, a disgrace. Would we let someone edit on a category "Capital cities" who has entered "London is the capital of Paris and Paris is the capital of Rome"? He knows nothing about the Hebrew Bible or New Testament and should be topic banned from dealing in those areas at all, or wp:NOTHERE and wp:CIR.Smeat75 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I hope we are going to get some admin action or comment about this, I don't want it to be archived without admin participation.Smeat75 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been goofing off recently and don't intend to investigate the background of this at the moment beyond a quick check which suggests that IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk · contribs) has gone quiet for now. However, I will intervene and guide the user towards a slow discussion of their proposals if that becomes necessary. To achieve that, please ping me from the user's talk after politely raising any new problem. I won't jump in with admin action but will apply sanctions if disruption persists. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks Johnuniq. Yes he has gone quiet since this report, maybe he has just gone for good, which quite honestly I would think is to the benefit of WP. Despite his username, he didn't edit on Islam at all really, he edited on people from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, subjects on which he manifestly had absolutely ZERO knowledge, trying to put them into utterly ridiculous categories.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

user Anjana Malhotra and COI

SPA editing various articles relating to Star India TV channels. User has ignored two Talk Page requests for COI disclosure and continues to edit on the topic. COI requests, recent contributions.

Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced and copied content

And creation of multiple unsourced articles of non notable subjects by TechnoBladeSPX (talk · contribs), per the prod messages today on their talk page. [125] appears to have been copied from another Wiki; [126] unsourced lists; content copied and rev/deleted [127]. Judging from responses, WP:CIR may be an issue. In the meantime, a fresh look at the recently copied text and unsourced additions will be appreciated. I can't edit at Ash Ketchum. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I encountered this user. Their creation of 4 micro-stubs about badges in Pokémon is particularly egregious: The Cascade Badge is the 2nd badge in Cerulean City, a fictional city in the TV show Pokemon, which is needed to participate in the Kanto League. (The link at the end points to Indigo League, another creation of theirs.) I've warned them again about copyright violations at Goh (Pokémon) (history). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Judging from responses, WP:CIR may be an issue." Not much of a surprise there. TechnoBladeSPX is a relatively new editor who has been active since July 2020. His familiarity with Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and notability is apparently lacking at this point. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Saturdayopen modifying Vital Article List without consensus

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

I have noticed that the above user is making a huge number of changes (both additions and deletions) at various Vital Article List without any consensus [128], [129], [130], [131]. This seems to have been going on for the last week but picked up drastic pace in last 3 days. The user has already received a Level 2 warning for nonconstructive edits on a talk-page.

I would like help in following: 1. Knowing is this the right place to report such an incident. 2. Experienced User investigating if my claim is right 3. In case it is right, rollback the changes made by the user and appropriately warning them.

Thanks Roller26 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Roller26, please remember to notify the user whom is being reported on their talk page, as the instructions above in red dictate. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks - Roller26 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 - I agree that the user's edits removing content is quite concerning, especially given the fact that they're not leaving edit summaries to explain the reason for their changes. Their edits here remove a lot of listed articles, and with no explanation. The edits here - same thing... Changes without explanation. I'm not sure why they reverted Cewbot here. These edits may very well be legitimate, but it's hard to examine and understand due to no explanation. This user needs to start using edit summaries. If they make an edit removing content without explaining why, the edit can be reverted and the user warned and asked to explain using edit summaries. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've supplemented Valereee's message on the user's talk page with a response here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah Thanks for the guidance and help. Roller26 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I like to point out that most of my deletions were either articles that don't exist, redirects to articles that are already listed, or articles that are listed in different pages. I will admit that I have a problem with not writing justifications. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Saturdayopen, it's a good habit to get into. Edit summaries are really just as important to working collaboratively as the edit is to improving content. I have the tool turned on. On edits that are easily understood, you don't have to say much -- "typo" is sufficient if you're just correcting spelling -- but edits without an edit summary cause extra work for other editors, because multiple people will decide they have to check it, and especially when the edit isn't easily understood, multiple people might get pulled in, just like has happened here. There's more information at WP:Edit summary —valereee (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandal adding hoax info to video-game articles

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

---

93.107.29.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of a user adding fake information to video game articles. Primarily, the fake information they add is along the lines of this, adding fake platform releases. Other IPs iclude 109.77.84.52, 37.11.248.17, but there are really so many. I've also noticed something regarding this vandal: They often do their vandalism, and then undo it, example here -- note the +200 in one edit followed by another -200 in the next. User @Ferret: may know more as they seem to have caught one of their earlier IPs and labelled them as LTA here. Eik Corell (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Note: That first link appears to be a rollback link that was mistakenly included. What they probably meant was this. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Long term vandal, refrequently makes up fake releases or cancelled platforms of video games, or claims such as a game released on only one platform during the sixth generation of consoles was "cancelled" for all other consoles in that generation, so on and so forth. Geolocate is in Ireland. Have blocked them repeatedly over the years. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2020 (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.

Chronic, intractable behavior of User:Vaselineeeeeeee on my wiki Page John Alite

→ Moved to WP:BLPN

Targeting of users by User:Graham87

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 am having concerns about User:Graham87. He is targeting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Kenya such as User:Waweruboy for claims of WP:SOCK because of behavioral edits. There is no evidence of WP:SOCK. User:Graham87 targeted User:Waweruboy after edits on 1, 2 and 3 all which fall under Category:WikiProject Kenya members. I do not know what issues he has with those people, pages or persons but this is not based on WP:HSOCK. User:Graham87 described this as a block evasion after edits on three pages which were not promotional as per this or involved in any activity that does not meet WP:N. There is no evidence of WP:MEAT except targets by User:Graham87 after the said edit.According to User:Graham87 any edit on the said pages that meets WP:N is automatic WP:EVASION with absolutely no verifiable evidence.There is need for WP:CON to be very clear with the claimed evidence of WP:EVASION. No normal person can report User:Graham87 when they are in violation of WP:PG. I do not know what personal issues he has but there is need to follow on this keenly to achieve clear WP:CON of his activities that are founded clearly on grudges for things we don't know about.

I am not involved in any WP:EVASION related activities of these accounts. I am Njoroge from Nairobi, I am not paid by anyone and i am not involved in any violations of WP:PG but i feel there is need for this to be clearly, and openly addressed. As per this those account are for two different individuals with absolutely no connection except alleged behaviours of User:Graham87 because of edits on pages which are not promotional as per this. These blanket targeting of Category:WikiProject Kenya members is not WP:CIV. These are clearly normal people who are targeted without any form of WP:CIV.Njor22344668 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

...Says a new account with no edits besodes this one. Something is fishy here... Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

. I have created new account as per policy to protect my identity to address this because User:Graham87 involves targeting activities which are not addressed in WP:CIVNjor22344668 (talk)

@Njor22344668, I’m not sure what it is, but I think there’s a fundamental problem with the diffs you are providing. You might need to double check those. Celestina007 10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. OP blocked. Graham87 11:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove this section as block evasion or archive it, but I'll leave that to somebody else to decide whether that's appropriate. I've also taken the liberty of fixing the links above; they had extra slashes on them. Graham87 11:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that even a blind man could see those were socks. EEng 05:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Lol! Graham87 05:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Range block for Missouri vandals

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.

---

See, for instance, Webb City High School, Seneca High School (Missouri) and associated articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the vandalism is coming from a relatively small range (32 addresses); blocked 104.219.186.32/27 for 6 months. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 15 September 2020 (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 174.126.7.230

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

I’m not sure if it’s commonly done, but perhaps some admin can revoke the talk page access for this IP. The latest posts/edit summaries are rather offensive and might even need to be REVDEL; so, I didn’t think it was wise to post any diffs. The IP has already been blocked multiple times and the fact they even know about UTRS might indicate LTA; so, it seems that the latest block of 1 month is not going accomplish much. FWIW, I didn’t bother notifying the IP of this ANI discussion per WP:DENY because it seemed likely to only create more drama. The last admin who blocked the account is offline at the moment; otherwise, I would’ve brought this directly to their attention. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz turned talk page access off; I revdeleted the obscenities. Our double act in the Bournemouth Winter Gardens is postponed until next summer because of the pandemic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There are still two edit summaries with obscenities (slightly masked by character substitutions) -- could you (or another admin with rights) take care of those as well?Citing (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That step was done a while ago as well.— Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing by Bar Fruit on Gulfstream Park

Persistant addition of original research, consisting of commentary on YouTube videos (Diffs: [132],[133]) and unsourced material, citing the fact that this information can be obtained by a public access request, which is original research (Diffs: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143]). I have already discussed the issue with this user, on my talk page, however, this user has refused to stop, and has accused me of harassing them on their talk page. Account Mocrumbo has also made one edit to this page and is clearly the same person. Dylsss (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

• Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If someone could take a look, that'd be great. Here. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if we need DS at this point for Sushant Singh Rajput and all of the conspiracy theorists that are trying to hijack that article and associated ones. User blocked for the legal threat, and just plain WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore! And yes, not a bad idea.. I had three in 1 hour try. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, I'm not sure new DS are needed. In my opinion, disruption relating to Rajput can be handled using WP:NEWBLPBAN or even WP:ARBIPA. Salvio 13:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPDS is sufficient I think. I'm just surprised it isn't used more often, especially since we say BLP problems are terrible & not being solved. Seen multiple cases where admins aren't aware it exists. It's got a very broad scope, more than sufficient for these issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On another note, Sushant Singh Rajput has attracted some of the most bizarre (line 78 + see YouTube source), loopy (way too much rope, esp for BLPs) stuff. Shocking BLP violations, some of the edits around. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The main issue with using DS here is that most of these editors are drive-bys, and whatever ones aren't are (usually) ÆCE (talk · contribs) sockpuppets. DS is irrelevant to the former (and they wouldn't understand enough of how Wikipedia works to appreciate the sanction anyway) and the latter is already strikeout-banned. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

With that being said, while most of the attention is presently on the SSR article (due to it saying it was suicide in the infobox, due to an RfC), the scope of all this is SSR, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a fork of the original article), and Rhea Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (One of the major targets for "they killed him" conspiracy theories). All three are presently under 500/30 protection until mid-October, and frankly I don't see things calming down by then given the trial by media with regards to the case and the unwillingness of these drive-bys to even bother reading what's on the page (most of the edit requests have been about the exact same thing, and have been declined for pretty much the exact same reasons). More eyes on those pages and talk pages would definitely help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Mespar20

Mespar20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently deleted E. Javier Loya per WP:G11 / WP:G12 as a particularly egregious case of paid advocacy. The creator, Mespar20 contacted me on my talk, [144] clearly vexed that a client won't pay out for a deleted article. Since I didn't respond immediately, but was out with friends until late, he contacted me again (note that I made no edits between the two messages, because I wasn't at a computer terminal). Looking through his contributions, I see vandalism such as this and this, accompanied by a whole bunch of warnings. I don't think this guy is a net positive and should be blocked indefinitely. Who agrees? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting case, in that he has evolved from being a small-time vandal to being a paid editor. There is a lesson about the stupidity of some corporate clients who engage paid editors in that they apparently hired an editor whose experience including being a vandal. It says more (or less) about corporate clients than about Mespar20. I suggest that you wait and see whether he replies. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I, uh, hate to be that person, and definitely not defending Mespar20's actions, but be aware that at least in this country, fraudulent trading can be punishable by up to twelve months' imprisonment feels like a veiled legal threat to me? Like, I don't think you're actually threatening to pursue legal action against this person, but it does seem to have a similar implication. Would you mind striking that bit? I think the onwiki case is strong enough without it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, though the point I was making was that bad paid editing can (and should) have serious ramifications. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fair, and thanks for removing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, I would like to point out most of my vandals were from 2016 and were from time periods when I was in college and was still ignorant towards the idea of Wikipedia. From the perspective I’m coming from there was no fraudulent trading as I was attempting to correct a minor SEO issue with Google’s Knowledge panel that shows my clients name and photo but pulls up information. I explained to my client my inexperience of Wikipedia from the beginning but I would attempt to fix the error by creating a Wikipedia Page to pull information from. So, there were no intentions. They provided me the copy and any links to create the article. However, I should have looked further into it. I only ask for forgiveness now and have not malicious intentions. If I can be welcomed into the community and be given a chance to prove my worth by moving the information, I spend hours assembling into a draft and working towards making it a credible article. I would appreciate that.

Mespar20 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block This editor started out as a vandal in 2016, spamming his own name and his friend's names into the encyclopedia. At one point, he falsely claimed to be a member of the rock band Panic! at the Disco by adding his name to that article. Then, he got into the pest control business, and spammed his own blog posts into the encyclopedia. Now, he is doing reputation management for Javier Loya, a wealthy guy who, according to the Financial Times, is embroiled in a nasty lawsuit. To that end, this editor created a highly promotional biography that included copyright violations. This editor has never made a constructive edit to this encyclopedia, as far as I can see, and is certainly a net negative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  The editor claims they've changed and will now try write encyclopaedically. I can't tell if they mean in general, or just for their customer, so: I think if the editor writes an article in a volunteer capacity (not including writing about person they're paid to write for), or contributes substantially to an existing one, and said edits are productive, then they've sufficiently backed the assertion that their 2016 self is not their 2020 self. And this gives them the welcome and second chance they've requested. If, however, they're only willing to write about the person they're paid to write for, I think past and current behaviour is sufficient to support an indef - it's not worth anyone's time to have to clean up after messy paid edits with prior vandalism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, personally. I am willing to write about the law suit included in the biography. I have changed and willing to participate in the community. I understand my issues in the past were careless and reckless, however that was 4 years ago. I am not writing to promote the character, however to identify him online. So, I am more than willing to include details of the law suit and supported information. As for the copywritten material, I was simply placing the copy and photos provided by the clients. I am willing to rewrite the article from a non-bias point of view by including the good and the ugly. I never had any malicious attention upon rejoining and was looking throughout the rules to try to fix this error within Wikipedia. Such as including specific tags and citing all references towards all the facts I gave. I am asking for forgiveness for my prior vandalisms from 4 years ago and a chance to contribute to Wikipedia, not just on the behalf of myself. But for future edits too. I am not trying to preform reputation management for E Javier Loya, however just correct a simple error on Google’s knowledge panel that pulls up the data from Javier Loya when attempting to search for him. I am not trying to boost his reputation and willing to fully research and include the details of the client. Mespar20 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow up on a Split proposal

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – WP:ANRFC would be a better place to post this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi admins,

I like to raise awareness of a seemingly-concluded split proposal which I am the nominator and more than 2 weeks has passed. Is it appropriate to ask admins here to make a judgement and maybe consider the appropriate follow up actions? Thank you! Apologize in advance if ANI is not the the right place to raise such questions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

2604:3d08:6f7f:f5d0:b56a:61cf:26ae:1cd repeated vandalism

• ipvandal 2604:3d08:6f7f:f5d0:b56a:61cf:26ae:1cd (talk · contribs · WHOIS) repeated vandalism on Alexander Zverev after 3rd/4th warning. I can't post on WP:AIV due to the edit filter blocking my edit. 172.254.96.122 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@172.254.96.122: I reported the IP for you. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 02:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary change to email address for Oversight

The OTRS system is going to undergo major upgrades starting in a few hours, and lasting 2-3 days. In the interim, to ensure that Oversight is still available to the community, the email address has temporarily been changed to oversight-llists.wikimedia.org, which is usually the private, non-archiving mailing list used by oversighters to discuss requests. Additional moderators will be on duty during this time. The email address attached to User:Oversight has been changed over, and people are urged to use that method for making oversight requests. Other pages that contain the email address will also be modified. Risker (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Risker: Thank you for letting us know about this. WP:ANI is generally not the default community noticeboard. But sometimes it is the default community noticeboard. I'm pretty sure any number of editors would agree with my opinion here. Thank you again. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note: The OTRS upgrade is now complete, and the usual email address is back in service. We are in the process of changing everything back to normal. Risker (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

VOA account, but take a look at their userpage

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, take a look at this user page. Do we have a CSD criteria for this? Also, take a look at their edits and edits that hit edit filters. Regarding their userpage, I haven't come across an instance where they encode some sort of gadget that causes the top drop down menus to scoot to the right and embed themselves in the 'additional' drop down menu. Notifying user on next edit. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from everything else that is fishy here, that user page is a copyright violation because it doesn't acknowledge the authors. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

REDIR to Prostitution statistics by country ? Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Racist bilge at Theo Peckham

Sorry, but I have no patience for this. Please rev/delete and block the IPs. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Because this was the first offense for both of them, I gave them both a warning. If they continue to vandalise, I will report them. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 02:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood. But for racist edits we can break protocol, as administrators have noted in discussions here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I handled the revdel, it fell within RD2. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. And thanks to Acroterion for the blocks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Flagrantly racist edits are pretty much block-on-sight - people don't need to be warned that they're obviously being obnoxious, they already know that. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I could use some help for a reverse situation at Chink. The filters won't allow me to restore a sourced slur. And someone please block the vandal at that page. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Should be all set. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:F.Alexsandr

User:F.Alexsandr is rejecting The New York Times as a reference. Without references he is claimning that Russian state sponsored Wagner Group is "private company without state affiliation" removing NYT references that states otherwise in the process. [145] [146] [147] 3RR is also breached. I can't stand this honestly. 176.88.142.57 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Either that or you're engaging in WP:SYN. But it's not clear, and you're both edit warring, so I have protected the wrong version and you can both take it to Talk. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE behavior by KevinBartholomew

KevinBartholomew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just created an attack page on what is pursued to be one of their classmates. Looking at their contribs, it's clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Goose^(Talk!) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the now deleted article so can't comment on that, but I've looked at their other contributions and I don't think I'd call them NOTHERE. They appear to be making good faith edits in general, but seem to be unaware of our sourcing and notability requirements. They haven't edited since being warned about the attack page. It's possible that it was a one-off mistake. I think we should wait to see if they respond. You were also supposed to notify them of this discussion. I've gone ahead and done that. P-K3 (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Zsick

Regarding User:Zsick I find myself out unusually low on patience right now. Realizing my actions are as subject to review, would someone please take a look at the edit history of Virginia, Minnesota, and the talk page therein. This editor is not passing the smell-test for me, but my sniffer may be off.

Editor is edit warring in order to ensure that the world knows what a dangerous place Virginia, Minnesota is. I find their sources to be of dubious reliability, and when I requested more detailed information regarding the fbi source, nothing was accomplished. Another editor and I agree that crime statistics are fine to include in the article, but that it does not define the topic. Attempts to communicate have been met with accusations of COI and what I might interpret as a persecution complex. My recommendation would be a topic block for Virginia, Minnesota.

A few pertinent diffs [148], [149], [150], [151].

I have notified them on their talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As a new editor, I appreciate you involving third parties rather than continue making abrasive remarks on my talk page. I am unusually busy right now and have not had time to inform myself fully on how to resolve a dispute. I assumed that if you were, in fact, honest in your criticism of my contribution (everyone seemed entirely focused on me, which I thought violated WP), then you would eventually take the appropriate step for doing that.

I again apologize for anything I have done to contribute to your misperception of my motives, but I would point to your repeated insults in this very post as something of a defense (e.g., suggesting I stink, or that I have a "persecution complex"). I hope you will refrain from personal insults moving forward, as I have already asked multiple times. I assure you that your "sniffer is off," and I look forward to resolving this with a neutral third party. I can provide validation of my academic credentials if needed. When you say that "nothing was accomplished" by asking for more detailed information about the FBI statistics, I must assume that means you did not understand my response, so I am also happy to discuss statistics and data analysis with anyone who understands them. But it is the FBI. They are credible, I assure you. I can also provide whatever links or citations to support my contributions that are considered most credible or appropriate by the Wikipedia editor community.

To me, this is the kind of information that makes Wikipedia valuable and unique. While mainstream media focuses on crime in Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, and other major metropolitan areas, the reality is that the crime RATE matters more to the average citizen than the number of crimes committed in the city limits, which depends on population size. In other words, a larger percentage of people living in Virginia, Minnesota will be the victims of crime each year than people living in large cities. If this information was more readily available, all anyone would have to do is Google their town to cut past the spin and hyperbole that fills other media sources. This is why I find it odd that people want to delete or bury the information.

Again, I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of the larger community, who I hope will see things from my perspective and help put a stop to the apparent attempt to deprive the public of information they would want to know, as evidenced by the crime stories filling every newspaper. When a town of 8000 people has one of the highest crime rates in the country, I believe it belongs in the article lead. If neutral parties see it another way, I am happy to abide by the policies and norms of the community. If my past behavior violated one or the other, I will improve moving forward. I look forward to becoming an active and productive member of the Wikipedia community, especially after this experience. Zsick (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: and Zsick - this seems like a content dispute to me. A city having the highest crime rate in the country is certainly information that should be in the article, subject to reliable sourcing. It may even merit being in the lede too. Suggest you open a discussion on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In a discussion here this editor was cautioned about appropriate topics for the lead section, as well as my concern about them being a single-purpose editor. I also cautioned them about this here and here. Their edit summaries on this article describe it being their "hometown", and how this information about the crime rate needs to be posted before the next election. I offered a compromise here (and then made the edit). This editor would have none of it, and reverted the edit (along with an extensive cleanup of the article). Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Mjroots Thank you. I agree it is a content dispute, and there is a discussion on the talk page, where I have provided all of my reasoning. Instead of commenting on the content, the other editors have repeatedly attacked me and my credibility, as Magnolia's post here shows. They appear to be citing WP in an attempt to bully me into taking down content they don't like for some reason. Zsick (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@78.26:, Magnolia677 and Zsick - I've added my thoughts at the talk page. This means that a full discussion (RFC?) needs to take place before the info is re-added. Zsick, find some high quality sources to back your claims and you'll have a better chance of having the information included. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What would you consider "high quality" sources? I have provided three separate sources (one of which was literally the FBI data cited in the other analysis). The information is valid. As I have said repeatedly, I will provide a citation to whatever source will satisfy your concerns with the content, but you have to state them. Zsick (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you've got three good quality reliable sources you need to list them on the article talk page where experienced editors can assess whether they meet our requirements, which are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That's where the discussion needs to take place from here.— Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The editor has 34 total edits and is already displaying some WP:NOTTHERE behavior. Reverted one of my edits on ANI for no particular reason and with no edit summary. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • They've already apologised for that— Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Promotional account and linkspam, continuing after block is lifted

Ec21imc (talk · contribs), who is refreshingly candid re: their purpose here [152]. Requesting rollback of all recent edits designed to drum up tourism, and an indefinite block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user's recent edits on September 14 couldn't be more obvious. He/she is externally linking to a tourist website and adding tourist information in an advertising-like fashion. I have blocked the account indefinitely; it's clear that their purpose here is not to build an encyclopedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You bet! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Death threats by unregistered editor

MegastarLV seems to have been having trouble with a persistant unregistered editor who keeps reverting to a 12 February 2019 revision of Sevcec.[153][154][155][156] The last two edit summaries by this editor were "If you revert back, I'll kill you MegastarLV!!!!" and "I'll Kill You MegastarLV, I'll KILL YOU!!!", which are both obviously inappropriate. I'm not sure what should be done about this but no editor should nbe the target of summaries like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

66.65.12.196 blocked 1 week, article semi'd for a month. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the offending death threats be RD3'd? I would seem to think so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

History of promotional edits and copyright violation at American Land Title Association

Requesting rev/deletion as far back as necessary, which I think is just to August of this year. At least some of the promotional content from the large edit appears to have been copied from the association website. And a user block, too, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Correction. The copyright problems go back at least to May 2015, with this [157] apparently copied from [158]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:DogExpert

As I'm involved here, I'm seeking outside attention. There has been a long running issue at the article on St. Bernard (dog), where for literally more than a decade people have pushed a ludicrous and either unsourced or poorly sourced claim about a St. Bernard alternately named Benedictine or Benedictine Daily Double being the largest dog in history. The discussion on this was settled in early 2011, the talkpage archives are littered with discussions affirming it's unsuitable for inclusion, and the article has a comment warning editors not to add this. Despite all of this and multiple warnings, every few months DogExpert continues to try to force this "fact" into the article, the latest efforts are here, here, here, and here. Would someone removed from this situation take a look here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: - would an edit notice be appropriate here? Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In any case, I've issued a final warning not to re-add the information. Sourcing is dubious at best. Should reliable sourcing be found, the issue needs to be discussed at talk and consensus reached before the info is added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

An editnotice might be useful, yes. Worth a shot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: - Edit notice created at Template:Editnotices/Page/St. Bernard (dog). Let me know if any change in wording is desired. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Independently of the specific article, I'd consider a WP:CIR indef block on User:DogExpert. I've gone through their edits over the last two years, and quite literally every single one of them was disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: - let's see what happens next. Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is started at Talk:St. Bernard (dog) if anyone is interested. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson

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.

---

Concern is regarding an issue (singular) with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). I'll be short. What the fuck is this [159]? Isn't this as egregious as someone putting a picture of a certain person who says bigly, beside an article titled Mental disorder? I don't go around digging someone's edit history. But I am confident that despite being aware of BLP policies, he made a troll page to provoke others. I have zero intentions of ever communicating with him in the future but I want to ask him here. What's your obsession with Greta (who was then 16)? His version was removed here and here (by User:ජපස and User:Bradv respectively), which means it stayed in public and indexed for more than a year perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't go around digging someone's edit history." - but you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? The picture seems fine in the context of that one-line stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? What? The article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety. - hako9 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, but that's not obvious from the diff you provided. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target:
  • [160]- accuses User:Ajf773 of racism
  • [161]- more accusations of racism, this one leveled at @Piotrus:
  • [162]- accuses User:Soetermans of shilling for Fandom, Inc.
  • [163]- Further accusations of racism
• Good luck getting AfD closers to acknowledge these personal attacks, but maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article in question is currently at AfD, where I have explained some history of the article. It was initially based on this BBC article, which highlighted Greta Thunberg in this context, including the cited quotation of hers. I read that BBC article at the time, noticed that we didn't have a corresponding article and so got one started. Lots of other editors have expanded the article since and I've mostly left them to it. This just seems to be ordinary editing per WP:BOLD. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you, for instance, put a picture of Sushant Singh Rajput in an article titled depression, with his quotes (out of context), in the caption. The BBC article doesn't put her picture as the top display. Is this not completely un-encyclopedic? Isn't this enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate this article with her personal life and her mental health, all in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks a lot, for leaving this articles to others. The harm you caused would maybe be more difficult to fix than creating an article from scratch. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts) No, "his version" was not removed in those edits. He neither created the caption removed by User:ජපස nor the text removed by User:Bradv. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Phil Bridger: for pointing it out to me though, that those weren't "his versions". Striked that word. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The OP is now claiming that I have an "obsession with Greta" and adds some innuendo about her age. But the OP fails to provide evidence of such an obsession. So far as I recall, I have never edited the article about her and it wasn't on my watchlist when I looked at it just now. I don't think I've even read the article before as it was interesting to discover that her second name is Tintin, which I was not previously aware of.

What I have done previously is create some other articles about environmental topics including beach cleaning; back to nature; ammonia pollution; decline in insect populations; plogging; Boyan Slat; sharawadgi. I have also created hundreds of articles on a variety of other topics as I'm not especially obsessed by any particular topic. One such other article was give a dog a bad name and hang him. I don't recall exactly, but suppose that was inspired by some similar proceeding here at ANI. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was it interesting for you to discover her second name is Tintin? - hako9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of articles about ecoanxiety mention Greta. She represents worrying about the environment rather well. I don't see this is an insult. Why call it a "mental disorder" when people are worried about the environment? Dream Focus 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Look at this version (before today's nomination)- [164]. Quoting from the article's lead Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, is a high-profile example of youth who have been affected and has been pivotal in making climate anxiety more visible around the world. At the age of 11, she became seriously depressed because of her worries about global warming, although her anxiety exacerbated her pre-existing mental health problems. Here is the source (paints a completely different picture imv)The Guardian. Do you find anything wrong? If not then ask yourself, what is this article about. Is it about psychological emotion or about a girl and her personal life. If a line on this and her past was included in her own article, that would've been fine. This isn't. - hako9 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't in the original article he created. Her article has a section for her mental health issues including depression. Greta_Thunberg#Mental_health Dream Focus 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, It wasn't. But I'll repeat, his creation of the article was done with a purpose of enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate the article with her personal life and her mental health, in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds rather ridiculous. Why would you believe someone would create an article for that devious purpose? How exactly would that even work? You honestly believe he somehow knew others would come and add in more information that you find offensive, despite it being listed in her own article? Dream Focus 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The section on her page distinguishes completely, her past and the issues she overcame, in contrast to her activism later in life. The article portrays that the psychological response in teens is unsubstantiated by way of making her the poster child of people who had issues earlier in life, and who are known for that mere reason. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not seeing an ANI-level issue here. Would need much more evidence to make the case for a tban or some other sort of action. I don't agree with Andrew's editorial decision in that article, but don't think it rises to the level of a behavioral problem. BD2412 suggested a very sensible approach to handling the article(s), and as Reyk's comments show, the longer this stays open the more likely it is to drift into other issues. If something's going to happen with Andrew (or ARS, since that's relevant to this AfD) it's probably not going to happen in the context of this thread. $0.02 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI- every time I allow myself the least bit of optimism I end up disappointed. Why do I bother? Reyk _YO! 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like I stand corrected. Usually bringing up unrelated issues with regard to the subject of an ANI report, when the initial report doesn't have much meat to it, doesn't go anywhere (and IMO weakens those same arguments for when they are relevant down the road), but it looks like perhaps enough is enough [for a warning]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Although the diffs provided by Reyk are much much more serious, can someone please comment on whether an article creation like this is ohk? Am I losing my shit over a paltry issue or does my concern have maybe, an iota of validity? - hako9 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I understand what you're saying and I guess my passive agressive complaining just now wasn't a good idea. But sometimes you just can't satisfy everyone. If I protest at the AfDs, closers ignore it. If I start an ANI myself people will accuse me of just having an axe to grind. If I attach my concerns to another ANI regarding insinuations against people who don't deserve it that's too off-topic. If I wait for a more AfD-centric discussion I'll get dismissed because the alleged misbehaviour was too long ago. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Chin up, Reyk! Lev!vich 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning and urge Andrew Davidson to take it seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I also endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning, and will enforce the same if I see uncivil conduct continue. BD2412 T 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Adding my support and my endorsement to this as well, please take this seriously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's nearly ten years ago (I did have to check, it wasn't imprinted on my brain) that I blocked Andrew for equating deletionists to Nazis, I really would have hoped that this would have improved since then. It really should. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll mirror both you and NinjaRobotPirate in that this definitely needs to be closed with at least a warning so the next problem can't be just passed off as not actionable again and again. Andrew Davidson needs to take this seriously and that any further actions like this will be sanctioned. I don't know how well a warning will really work given all this time and many warnings from editors, but it's clear the battleground behavior related to AfDs is not stopping. The recent sniping at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skull_Cave was the most recent one that caught my eye before this ANI. Blocks need to be tried to get it to stop at this point. Otherwise, if we start totaling up diffs of WP:TEND behavior that by definition may not be actionable individually, we're looking at needing a topic ban from deletion related topics if this doesn't stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I had thought this complaint was something of an exaggeration until I saw this diff. Here, the user lists three sources that are ostensibly about the topic of eco-anxiety. The problem is that none of the sources are about eco-anxiety. None of them use the term even once. This kind of appalling editorial indiscretion is an enormous red flag. I don't know what to do about it, but it's clear this user is here to use Wikipedia as a venue for his own original research rather than a means to collate what third-party sources say about a topic. This is a really big issue as far as I'm concerned -- especially as the user seems to have sufficient abilities to make it appear as though he is following Wikipedia standards and practices when in fact he is flouting them completely. Something needs to be done. jps (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That diff you link is unfortunately what I've experienced at AfDs where they are involved too. Much of this ANI deals with their battleground behavior issues, but what you're describing is more of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. It functionally becomes a WP:BLUDGEON when Andrew repeatedly does that across AfDs. I hadn't taken the sanction idea as seriously before, but I am drifting more towards a deletion topic ban (whether for competence or battleground issues) being in the cards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. The OP who couldn't properly link a WP:DIFF aside, I was pinged by Reyk and I do concur that Andrew's behavior in some areas of the project is problematic, in two dimensions. First, an occasional lack of civility is an issue, coupled with a significant amount of POINTless disruption with AfDs. Few examples: 1) an edit summary accusing others of disruptive PROD (I think it is deleted now). 2) in another recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave Andrew accused the nom (me) of "abuse of our deletion process"; his Keep vote was the only one there and User:Argento Surfer explicitly said 'you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse"' 4) another recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee saw where his keep vote was the only dissenting one saw him making yet another personal attack at the nom (me): "The nomination's claims are therefore false.". This has been pointed out by User:GizzyCatBella [165]. 5) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbird (comics) he accused the nom (me...) of "cookie-cutter" nomination, his post there led to explicit criticism by User:Darkknight2149: [166]; and he used the cookie-cutter in other AdDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle where again his vote was the only dissenting one 6) a pattern of dePRODing articles with an unhelpful rationale, and not participating in the resulting AfDs even when pinged directly (I could link dozens of cases like the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran or the still ongoing but quite clear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club; here's a random one from few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Clark - please note that this is not a case of 'once every few weeks', but rather 'several times a week'); this is particularly problematic when the dePRODs are done on content that is unreferenced and later not contested by anyone like the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingmen_of_Thanagar. His pattern of dePRODing has been subject to numerous complaints before like this recent one by User:DoubleGrazing: [167]; they are easy to see because Andrew habitually removes such warnings from his talkpage... through some discussions are preserved: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Mass_prodding_by_Piotrus, few more at User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions but I think most are not archived and I don't have the time and will to dig through the diffs of his talk page. ANI archives, however, are more stable: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. I really don't know what to do, since this is not white and black, some of Andrew's dePRODs are valid, and so are some of his AfD comments. But the ratio of bad to good is a problem here. I really don't like the idea of sanctions when an editor is editing in good faith, and even through I disagree with Andrew quite a lot, I am not sure I'd support any topic ban. But one suggestion I do have is a custom sanction that would force him to provide a meaningful rationale with his dePRODs. Check: [168] and remember that it only shows kept articles (or ones nobody bothered to challenge again). But a lot of the stuff he dePRODs with no edit summary, not bothering to comment in AfD, effectively wastes community time (and I repeat - if anyone wants more data points, I can easily list several dozens of articles that Andrew dePRODed with a generic edit summary, that he did not participate in a resulting AfD even after being pinged, and that were uncontroversial deletes). And when he comments in those AfDs, as the diffs show, too often those comments are not constructive nor polite :( PS. To be clear: I don't mind deprods, and I don't want to topic ban Andrew from dePRODs, but what I see is a pattern of mass dePRODing with no BEFORE on his part, as evidenced by mentioned dozens of articles that he PRODed with no rationale, that in turn were AfDed with him being pinged and where he did not participate, and nobody else found any reason to keep an article. When this happens dozens of times each months for years now I think we have a problem. Andrew needs to stop dePRODing on a whim, and when he occasionally participates in a resulting AfDs, he needs to AGF the nom and make his arguments constructive, not battleground-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, I did not link a diff because I had a single issue with the user. That of creation of an article with a picture and caption of a person to try to portray that person as maybe an environmental alarmist at best and a person with mental health issues at worst . If no one finds this as an issue of malintent, it would be better that I strike my comments and let others speak. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. - hako9 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hako9, in my opinion, the matter you brought forward is worthy of attention, and is relevant to the broader discussion, and there is no reason for you to apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Apologies are under-used here, but yes, this was my mistake - I didn't realize you meant the very first diff. Through next time it wouldn't hurt to make it more clear. I apologize for dismissing the OP's link. This is not a waste of time. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a gracious thing to say, Piotrus. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I... I really wish this wasn't something to thank me for. This project would be in much better shape if people would be more willing to say 'sorry' and 'thank you' more often. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, Oh man. Thanks for saying that. From the beginning of starting this post, I was constantly thinking, Am I assuming the worst in people or have I gone completely insane. I just want to make a final comment. I don't want any action against Andrew (atleast for my complaint of creation of that article. Reyk's and your issue, needs different look). I just want someone to say to Andrew that, Dude, that article, with that picture and that caption, was 100% INSENSITIVE and you just can not do that. - hako9 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'll say that my interactions with Andrew have probably been disagreements at least as often as not, but I believe he's a net positive for the project. His standards for inclusion are lower than average, but his quality of contribution is higher than average - when he was reviewing a DYK nom for me, he actually bought the book and read it before passing so it wouldn't just be a rubber stamp. Although I can appreciate the sheer volume of deletion noms he wants to oppose is probably overwhelming, I would encourage him to put effort into improving the articles he defends rather than add a bullet pointed list of references to the AfD. That effort will either result in some WP:HEY keeps and people will start giving his opinion more weight, or he'll realize his sources weren't as useful as he believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is nothing egregious here. And there is no need for the OP to say, "What the fuck is..." It does not make the argument better, it is distracting. Andrew Davidson has written a great article and many others on the project...that the OP misinterpreted the intentions of Andrew D who used a photograph of a well known environmental voice, is not the fault of Andrew D. This is also quite a dramatic revert by JPS also with a very...uncivil "Fuck no" edit summary. That the truth is offensive to certain editors is not a problem with Andrew D, and now that everyone has been overruled by Bradv's edit we can move on. Or maybe not...JPS also nominated the article for deletion as possible WP:REVENGE and that seems more egregious and disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• No need for action here except maybe a boomerang. If there was a valid case to make against another editor it should be possible to do so without use of the f word, calling them a troll or assuming you know what they think. Accusations that include phrases such as "He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target". Don't need further investigation - unless accompanied by a diff from the target saying that they hadn't actually meant an accusation but had only done it to annoy. The best way to deal with such attacks is to dismiss them out of hand. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, because you know that the Colonel's accusations of racism and shilling are indefensible, you seek to dismiss the complaint by quibbling about its wording. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt they are indefensible, but that isn't the point. Using the F word, calling someone a troll and presuming you know what they think are not some minor typo that could be dismissed as a quibble. If there were valid complaints to make against the Colonel they could have been made without them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should have tried to dismiss my valid complaints before several administrators in good standing backed them up. Bit late to protect your friend now. Reyk _YO! 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I hope none of our colleagues share whatever moral code led you to conclude that three accusations of racism merit "no need for action" but using the words "fuck" and "troll" merits "maybe a boomerang". Lev!vich 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  The combination of the f word and the presumption of knowing what someone thinks means that I am unlikely to find the rest of the case convincing. a set of diffs setting out an allegation of trolling would be worth investigating, but it would be much much stronger without those two minuses. Taking this alleged accusation of racism. I disagree with the Colonel re the notability of Azerbaijani long service awards. Many organisations have ten year, fifteen year and twenty year long service awards. Wikipedia itself has a service award system, and I'm comfortable that it isn't mentioned in our article on Wikipedia. I suppose if I had taken part in that AFD I might have argued for merge rather than delete, if there were an article on Azerbaijani awards or perhaps to the article on the Azerbaijani government; but can't see myself !voting keep on that one. As for whether it is systematic bias or English language bias or indeed racism the Colonel himself doesn't as far as I can see presume to assume other people's motivation. There is a perfectly legitimate minority view among some in this community that our audience is the English speaking world, and that a topic like this might belong on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but it doesn't really belong here. I don't share that view, not least because there are English speakers practically everywhere but also because our remit is to cover the sum of all knowledge and I'm aware that many of our readers do so via translation tools - our reach is beyond the English speaking world. However I wouldn't assume that someone holding that view was institutionally biased or indeed racist; let alone someone who, like me, wasn't convinced that any organisation's long service award really merits its own article. The Colonel did say some fairly disparaging things about deletionists in that thread, comments that would sink an RFA if he were to run there. But I read him comments as being more polite or less incivil than the person who used the f word and called him a troll. In short I take racism very seriously, I am very sure that the colonel does as well. If he were to accuse someone of racism I am confident that he would do so with good evidence, I don't see him using the word "racism" in that diff. ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• So mentioning a "system bias" makes you a racist? He comments to someone from New Zealand [169] and someone from Poland [170] how they don't seem to mind if list of shopping malls in their countries don't have sources, but are willing to delete the list of those in Africa. Race was never mentioned nor implied. Just an accusation of a double standard for their own nations perhaps. Not assuming good faith though. Should've been worded differently. Dream Focus 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dream Focus, Why did you conveniently leave out this diff, where Andrew, called another user (who nac'd an afd) a "presumptious (sic) non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place".

  I am speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't like to be talked in that tone ever. IRL or online. If someone called me a presumptuous guy who needed to be put in their place, I frankly wouldn't complain. But why mention a user's nationality? What was the intent there? Notice the mention of nationality after conjunction "and", as if to belittle someone. Am I reaching here? Or Is this the kind of way and tone to speak to someone? - hako9 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Hako9, actually Davidson is falsely attributing those hateful and racist views to someone else. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading tea leaves to assign motives or racist intent (I personally do not see it). Too often with written word, editors see what they want. Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, How would you classify that projection? Some kind of paternalistic prejudice, to be too polite? - hako9 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just looked at the diffs supplied by Reyk at the top of the thread and I'm utterly shocked, especially from someone who I have worked with in many positive ways to write and improve the encyclopedia over several years. Andrew, this comment is a personal attack and I'm pleased to see that fellow administrators agree that is completely unacceptable to insult fellow editors like this. Please do not do this again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read all the diffs above, but I find these types of comments problematic:

• One long accusation of bad faith: [171],
• "where he managed to get the close overturned as the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place." [172],
• "What the nay-sayers fail to explain is why we should single out African countries for systemic bias"[173].

The full comments from the above show more problems.   // Timothy :: talk  02:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In yet another bad-faith accusation today, Andrew Davidson has accused a user who began a discussion of inappropriate forum-shopping (without at all contributing to the discussion as others were, just casting it as "vague"), where in fact the OP was uninvolved in the separate Wikiproject discussion that was largely unanimous and ended more than a month earlier. Reywas92^Talk 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Update The AfD for the article in question has now been closed. There were lots of !votes and the score was 13 merge, 8 keep and 2 delete. The conclusion was to merge to an article that does not exist! In the course of the parallel discussion at the fringe noticeboard, someone shrewdly noted that, at last year's discussion of climate psychosis, it was then decided that eco-anxiety was the preferred target. As that happened in August 2019, when the article was much as I had created it, this demonstrates that the article was considered satisfactory rather than outrageous. In December 2019, Piotrus further confirmed this status by destubbing it. The OP's claims that this was a bad faith creation in pursuit of an obsession seem quite mistaken. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

dComment I know this user. He has almost always voted Keep or Merge at AfD. He tends to cite specific policies or attempt to cite sources [174][175][176], often poorly. Of his 131 Keep and Speedy keep votes on closed AfDs, 72 were kept, 20 were deleted, 16 were redirected, 10 were merged, and 13 reached no consensus. Of the 159 AfD votes counted in the matrix, 89 matched the eventual result and 57 did not. That's 61% hit rate if No consensus results are ignored. Combined with the recent personal attacks, I feel like this user is edging on a siteban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - a thread about a newer user who made a remark like the Nigerian bit cited above, would have been closed with an indeff after the minimum allowable time. We all know that's true. So why is this thread longer than the typical top level US state article? Just asking. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  John from Idegon, inclusionist celebrities are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Right, there is obviously a correlation between how active you are and what you can get away with. Up to a point anyway. Anyway, I think it woudl be best to close this with some kind of warning regarding civility and/or good faith, so all of this actually produces something constructive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• What an astonishing thread! Many of us have met the Colonel in RL, and know he's a tireless attenders of Wikimedia events to promote diversity. While some of the diffs can be made to look bad if we take parts of quotes out of context , if we look at them carefully, he's clearly on the pro African side. The Colonel is someone I know well in the real world, one of our finest scholars and an British gentleman of impeccable character.

That said, I find myself partly agreeing with Reyk. Very occasionally the Colonel does seem to not AGF, and perhaps he might want to consider taking a few weeks break from AfD every now and then. AfD could try the patience of a literal Saint if frequented too often. So perhaps this could be closed with a reminder to all of the importance for assuming good faith, and being as collegial as possible towards our fellow editors? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick point of order, not everyone will understand that "the Colonel" means Andrew in this context; some may mistakenly think you're referring to a chap dressed in military uniform to demand that ANI threads be instantly stopped because they are too silly.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The thread has indeed been Pythonesque as one surreal sketch segued into another. So far in this two-week run we have had:

1. The Dirty Fork in which extravagant complaints are made about eco-anxiety. The joke here is that the same customers were recommending it in a different debate last year.
2. Four Yorkshireman who reminisce about the distant past, magnifying the horrors and difficulties of those times as they try to shock their audience
3. Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook in which words are twisted and changed so that their meaning is reversed and there is a ranting torrent of abuse
4. Something completely different in which we mustn't talk about the war!
5. Nudge Nudge in which there is much talk of mysterious prodding
6. Argument Clinic in which the point of the argument escapes and turns into being-hit-on-the-head lessons
7. The Colonel arrives and declares that the proceedings have become too silly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You can try to be the court jester all you want. You should know that people find your references and attitude pathetically unfunny. Contrary to what you may think, people don't have time to waste on frivolous complaints. And I wasn't just being a snowflake with my "extravagant complaint". - hako9 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal A - indeff for the highly racist, absolutely indefensible remark about "putting the Nigerian in his place". He's shown no remorse or understanding as to why he absolutely cannot say those things on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, we all know a new editor wouldn't have gorren away with that. It's certainly much more egregious than things I've seen other senior editors defrocked for. We cannot call an editor with names that imply privileged, as was done immediately above this subheader, and allow said privileged editor to say things like the Nigerian comment. I'm not a big supporter of cancel culture, but indeffs are appealable.

• Proposal B - topic ban from deletion processes. His disruption of deletion processes seems to be infinite. He's been called here multiple times over it, it's eveidenced above that he's still doing it. He's reverted at least 40 prods I've placed over the past eight years, never with any explanation except words that boil down to "because I can". Someone above asserted extremely active editors get away with stuff others don't. That's true, and it's not good. But even given that, there has to be a line in the sand. An admin with a similar start date and considerably more community activity was desysopped about a year ago for essentially sexism for making much less egregious remarks. And he's not that active. In 12 years, he's made about as many edits as I make in a year. And nearly a third of his edits are to Wikispace. (Mr X) Wikispace, you know...where deletion processes are held. Where RfA, another area where he's been disruptive, is.

• My preference as nominator would be A, with B second. No action isn't a viable option. John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you understand the Colonel was actually arguing against that despicable sentiment? So unless you are proposing an indef against the pro deletion editor, which doesnt seem likely, have you perhaps miss read the Nigerian diff? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Colonel was basically saying "Sandstein reopened that NAC discussion because he thinks Nigerians need to be put in their place". Accusing someone of being a racist when they're not, and you know they're not, just to be hurtful is almost as bad as the racism itself. Reyk _YO! 18:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the general point, but the way I read the diff, I'm close to 99.99% the Colonel didn't mean it against Sandstein (someone I've long said is one of our very best XfD closers). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bullshit, FeydHuxtable. Thanks for providing the link. Davidson wrote that, no one else. He wasn't quoting anyone, and flat out stated he did it to "...put the Nigerian in his place. If you're going to support a racist editor, get it right. Sorry, but ANYONE who thinks there is a special place people from certain countries need to be put is not capable of editing here, much less one stupid enough to actually type that unto the en.wiki website. Sorry, but WP:NONAZI applies...minimally, Davidson needs to apogize for that, explain to the community why he needs to apologize and be put on a 0 restriction from ever doing it again. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) I explained the reference to Nigeria in that discussion. The point was that they were not Azerbajani, as the topic seemed to be dominated by editors from that nation. I haven't gone into it here, as it's a complicated matter and quite irrelevant to the OP's complaint about eco-anxiety. The context of that other discussion was difficult closes of AfD discussions and they are, by definition, difficult. My general point was to explore the full history of that one. The outcome has been to create a Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion board. I wasn't convinced that this was necessary but it can certainly be difficult to unpick the complexities of such a case. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, do you understand why the phrasing you used is inappropriate, period? Remarks like that cannot be explained. Making a denegrating comment at all, in any situation is not acceptable in modern society. Period. If you can indicate any understanding of that, I'll be happy to withdraw my vote to indeff, and withdraw the proposal to block. John from Idegon (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is comes off as off-topic mudslinging. This ANI is not even related to some of your different claims here. Also I feel you do not understand the context of the comments which you characterize as "highly racist." Perhaps you should provide diffs to these He's reverted at least 40 prods I've placed over the past eight years. (40 prods over 8 years is 0.2 5 prods removed a year?) It sounds like you have a separate issue or grudge completely unrelated to this ANI Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of 40 proposed deletions over eight years is 5 per year. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! You're correction is Mathematically elegant! Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I just browsed User:John from Idegon/PROD log and don't recognise the 40 prods that he talks of -- just the odd case like Linestanding, which still seems to be a reasonable topic. What I do notice is that there are lots of blue links in that PROD log which indicates that I'm not the only person successfully contesting such prods. As the prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected", John should be using AfD, not prod. My actions as a prod patroller are quite valid. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Proposal B All the evidence in the discussion above shows that Andrew Davidson' participation has long been a net negative to our deletion processes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose overblown hyperbole - the use of the term "highly racist" is an aspersion and or personal attack and the proposer should strike it. Andrew Davidson has never been disruptive in AfDs and that is why this ANI was going nowhere until this out of left field A B proposal with a strange editorial of: "No action isn't a viable option" The editor does not reflexively !vote with the majority and perhaps that is his crime. There is not a reason place any restrictions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not gonna happen. You are threatening me with sanctions for pointing out saying something racist is racist? Do it or drop it, dude. AFAIAC, that puts you in the same frame as him. John from Idegon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are carrying forward a grudge against AD. And your proposals are unrelated to the ANI. Your opinions are not objective, they are very subjective. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support proposal B- Enough is enough. He goes out of his way to be odious to other AfD participants at every opportunity. It shouldn't be necessary to insult other people, misrepresent policy, or make bizarre accusations against people in an AfD discussion, yet the Colonel seemingly can't participate without doing one or all of those things. Net negative. Reyk _YO! 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose . Even sanction B would interfere with the extensive work the Colonel does helping newbies at wiki training events & other meetups to promote diversity and other good causes. Probably he's not as key now things have moved online, but still a great asset. Also, while he might not be right every time, surely none can deny the Colonel has saved many thousands of policy compliant articles over the years, which would otherwise be lost to us? The XfD process is inherently a source of drama, how can it not be when each XfD is essential a proposal to wipe out peoples hard work, sometimes literally weeks of work in a single AfD? I'm not sure that many of the diffs above show the Colonel causing drama that wasn't already there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am currently attending the monthly UK meetup on Zoom and this ANI matter is an unwelcome distraction from that. I recently attended the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Vaccine_initiative_pilot_editing_event at which I did various event coordination tasks -- welcoming and confirming new editors and creating structural material such as Category: COVID-19 vaccines. The idea that I am not a good-faith editor seems quite unreal. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Out of context. Most understood what he said. He should be more careful to word things in the future to avoid problems with those that have low reading comprehension skills. He is not a racist, he was accusing someone else perhaps of being racist or just bias against that nation. He should not have done that anyway, but no reason to blow things out of bounds over this. Dream Focus 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks like a great editor to me, and literally cant see anything he has done wrong here2A00:23C4:201:5F00:3126:BB77:6FBB:FC9A (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Whose sock are you? Reyk _YO! 19:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of other editors who need to be chastised for their incivility far more than Andrew Davidson. I don't see how Andrew Davidson's mild statements presented in the above diffs come even close to justifying such a broad topic ban for a productive editor. Even many of the people in the above thread have been casting aspersions and making personal attacks on Andrew Davidson that are far worse than anything he has given. The proposer himself recently came off an indefinite ban based on a promise to avoid incivility and drama-mongering such as much of the above. Worldlywise (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow I just had a look at the ANI and the block log for John from Idegon. I was perplexed by the PA against Andrew D and the suggestion of what I consider outrageous proposals. Now I see from the block log, there was hostility and incivility by John from Idegon in July 2020 which earned them a few blocks.diff, diff. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• So I've been blocked before. So have you. Go accuse some else of bias, without evidence. Either do it or drop it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support B - not the first time AD has been uncivil in deletion discussions. Or the second. Or the tenth. There are too many previous noticeboard threads and blocks; warnings and prior sanctions are not preventing the disruption here. Lev!vich 23:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Too many blocks? This account has been blocked just once and that was over 6 years ago; the admin that did it was involved and was de-sysopped. Perhaps Levivich is not familiar with this because they started editing less than two years ago. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's stupid to lie about past Wikipedia activity, especially by omission. Everything is written down and searchable. In this case, the links are in this very thread. "All the evidence in the discussion above shows that Andrew Davidson' participation has long been a net negative to our deletion processes", to quote another !voter, with whom I 100% agree. Also, I don't care how many wiki meetups you go to. I actually think you're a bad influence on some new editors, like Lightburst, setting a negative example that attacking !voters who disagree with you is somehow acceptable, encouraged, or normal. (Compare your responses here with LB's responses here: both of you are attacking voters you disagree with. It's an ARS thing I guess.) The best thing I can say about your AFD participation is that you're not the worst offender, but that's not saying very much, is it? At bottom you just don't care what editors who you disagree with at AFD think or how they feel. It's all a giant game to you, as evidenced by your use of language like "score" to describe AFD votes. And you've apparently remained steadfast about that for 10+ years despite many complaints from your colleagues, which you ignore. Repeatedly accusing editors of voting based on their racial bias? Truly: What the hell is wrong with you, man? That is totally out of bounds. So, I think your taking a break from AFDs will improve the project, and since you won't change voluntarily, I support a tban. Lev!vich 13:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It's all a giant game to you, as evidenced by your use of language like...That is totally out of bounds Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In one paragraph Levivich managed to call Andrew Davidson stupid, and a liar while boiling his contributions down to a "net negative" He then managed to take shots at both myself and WP:ARS... then implied there is something wrong with Andrew with "What the hell is wrong with you, man? That is totally out of bounds." I called out the incivility of the proposer who leveled a personal attack against AD calling him "highly racist" The proposer then went on to call out a laundry list of grievances. Then I saw that the proposer was banned for just such attacks and drama. I think if we ask which editor is a net positive to the encyclopedia we will see it is Andrew. Engaging in name calling and drama does nothing to build the encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just so nobody is deceived here, the Colonel has a more extensive block log under an alt account. See here. This block log includes incidents such as threatening someone's real life job for nominating an article at AfD, numerous misbehaviours at and around AfD, and equating people to Nazis. Reyk _YO! 10:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, and KWW was desysopped for some unrelated unpleasantness involving edit filters, five years later, and not for blocking the Colonel's then-undisclosed sock account. More lies. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Here's the finding of fact. I could likewise go into the details of the other blocks but going over this ancient history would tend to become wearisome. The summary version is that none of them lasted long because they were due to misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This sounds like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I know Andrew has had outbursts and personally attacked people, but they seem to be very isolated events, and we all get uptight every now and then. For instance, nobody is demanding that JFI be sanctioned for shouting "bullshit" at Feyd. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Nobody is demanding JFI be sanctioned because we're talking about very different orders of magnitude and it should not be used to distract from the long-term issues with Davidson by pointing at something by someone else that generally isn't even sanctionable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support B as the more long-term solution while still giving some WP:ROPE as opposed to a full indef (though no prejudice against if that option is needed). I'm also concerned about the oppose votes here ignoring most of Davidson's behavior as a whole reducing it down to outbursts or isolated incidents. The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is persistent and far from isolated when you look through their comments and far more than the racist or shilling comments that were already enough for at least 5 admins to warn him that a block was imminent.
  I'm also concerned after seeing Reyk's post that Davidson had a previous account with sanctions, even if it was awhile ago. It does establish though there's an even longer history of battleground behavior going back over 10 years. Considering the above comment and how they still seem to act as if they aren't doing anything wrong, this seems like a more realistic option now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Being active in contentious deletion discussions does not make one a bad person; and there is no evidence of any problem warranting a block or topic ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support B per my statement above and the PROD problems cited by John from Idegon (talk · contribs). I wish I could cite specific examples of the latter, but I know there are a few probelematic deprods that led to AfDs for articles about fictional elements. The user is too constructive otherwise for option A, and unsurprisingly no one supports that proposition. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• The supposed PROD problems were not cited by John from Idegon – there were no diffs or other evidence. In deletion discussions, I am usually the person who does the legwork and again, in this case, it was I that provided the one specific example that we have: linestanding. This article was started back in 2007 and was prodded by John in 2019 with the edit summary, "Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD". I spotted this while doing prod patrol and, as it seemed to be a reasonable topic, removed the prod with the edit summary "remove proposed deletion per WP:DEPROD". I use this form of edit summary now for symmetry, so that somone looking at the edit history will see the matching placement and removal, with the corresponding links to the relevant processes. I also updated the article's talk page adding an {{FSS}} template to assist with improvement. If you use this, you can readily see that the topic is notable being discussed in detail in books such as this.

The matter rests there because no-one has started a discussion on the article's talk page or at AfD. No-one else seems to think that the article should be deleted but, if I had not taken that action of removing the prod, the page might well have been deleted without discussion. That's what option B means – pages being silently removed from the project because the person who might investigate and object has been gagged.

Andrew🐉(talk) 05:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Colonel. A few years back I seem to recall you did more prod patrolling that everyone else put together. The world is changing faster than ever and we need newbies to help with much needed updates required to keep the Encyclopedia relevant. We cant afford too many to be driven off by unwarranted deletion! On the other hand it's also important not to demotivate the quality control crew. There may still be case for you taking the occasional break for a few weeks, so youre refreshed and your normal collegial self. I know folk like yourself, Dream & Lightburst have vastly more mental fortitude than someone like me - but staying perfectly civil when youre on AfD for years with no break, may be beyond even peak human capability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment, however I suspect another trip to this board would not reach the same result, so I'd strongly advise AD to rein it in a bit (and the same goes for all of the other "Keep: it's mentioned somewhere on the Internet" AfD crew). Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I could be persuaded to support an editing restriction limiting Andrew Davidson to only deprodding articles he's willing to defend at AfD—but that's it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose rather per Black Kite and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly through agreement with Black Kite, as I feel that Andrew provides valuable assistance in deletion areas; like just about anyone who contributes in highly contentious areas he is bound to slip here and there, so I would encourage him to take more care in AFDs and discuss content rather than contributors. BOZ (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We've got WP:ROPE if anything crops up in the future, which I hope it doesn't. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 15 September 2020 (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.

Article creations by Soul Crusher

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:Soul Crusher (SC) has nearly 2500 page creations going way back to 2006. After reducing activity towards the end of 2016, SC has returned with a vengeance since mid-July with approximately 500 new article creations (mostly albums featuring industrial/electronic bands) and well over 1000 new redirects in less than 2 months. There is a growing concern regarding the notability of many of these albums. Sources are severely lacking with many referencing AllMusic listings that don't have reviews. Besides AllMusic, the ones that do have independent coverage come from the likes of http://www.aidabet.com/ and https://sonic-boom.com/. Not long after their return, User:Richard3120 contacted SC on their talk page to express concern about some of these articles. I chimed in a few weeks later regarding the excessive number of redirects that were pointing to targets without any mention of the redirect topic.

• RfDs have taken place on August 22, August 24, and August 29, all resulting in delete.
• Deleted articles via AfD include Sin Factor, Baby Had an Accident, Hypnotic Illusions (the first two of which SC has since tried to recreate).
• I initiated an ANI on September 1 regarding the issue of redirects with general agreement by commenters. SC did begin limiting redirect creations to those having a specific mention in the target article, but I haven't done a deep dive on how appropriate they are.

Ongoing creations of albums with questionable notability caught the attention of User:Ss112 and he tried to discuss the situation with SC on September 4. A week later, it continues. I have been more diligent the past few days by tagging articles for notability and nominating others for deletion. There also appears to be a complete unwillingness to engage in discussion. In the ANI, SC simply stated "I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate". SC's only response on their user talk to these concerns was to Ss112, saying only that "They are notable." And in AfD discussions, the most participation has been to today's nominations where SC claims "The page contains links to reliably sources." I'd like suggestions on what could and should be done. Removal of Autopatrolled? A ban on creating new articles or that they can only be approved via the draft process? Is a block warranted for failure to communicate and an unwillingness to co-operate? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with notability or reliability of sources in any of the articles I created. I don't appreciate being brigaded again, I can read your language.Soul Crusher (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The cruxt of the problem is that you don't see a problem. Why not specifically address the concerns? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed the claims made on the articles' talk pages. I don't deal with slander and falsehoods.Soul Crusher (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"The article contains links to reliable sources" is hardly addressing the claims, especially when it's been repeatedly pointed out that the sources are not reliable ones that pass WP:RS... if they were reliable, the articles wouldn't have been deleted at AfD. It also doesn't explain why you believe you can ignore an AfD consensus and simply recreate the articles. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've redeleted and salted the two recreations; with some minor formatting differences, they were identical to the articles deleted at AFD. I'm also curious about Soul Crusher's accusation of "slander and falsehoods" above. What falsehoods? What slander? I'm considering removing autopatrolled, but would like more feedback from an editor or admin active in NPP. And yes, i think more communication is going to be needed going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I think pulling Autopatrolled is a minimum step. If an article is deleted at AfD, someone willing to recreate it a week later without any discussion would definitely benefit from having others review their work. I'm doing it now. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I took a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Drome and then examined the five references in Sin Drome, an article about a rock band. Four of the references are to websites controlled by Alex Kananowicz AKA Alex Kane, the front man of the band. The other is a passing mention on a website of dubious reliability. None of these amount to significant coverage. Not even close. It is very troubling that Soul Crusher has such a poor understanding of what constitutes significant coverage and reliable, independent sources, especially since the editor is cranking out so many poor quality articles. Something has to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Cullen328, Floquenbeam - apologies, I'm struggling on this device, the button isn't showing for me. Can one of you pull the Autopatrolled flag? GirthSummit _(blether) 22:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

   Done, although I am not sure that is enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Soul Crusher has now used a homophobic slur, then claimed that his brother did it. More action is needed. P-K3 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've indeffed based on the diff from P-K3. They'll need to address the WP:BROTHER incident as well as the disruption outlined in this thread in order to appeal the block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The recent articles appear to be related to Kananowicz so I looked in the early history to verify that it wasn't always the case (confirmed). I also noticed the indefinite block. @Soul Crusher: in case you appeal, I would suggest also promising to go through WP:DRAFT space and WP:AFC submissions for future contributions (other than also attempting to convince admins that personal attacks will no longer occur). —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Given the issues with page creation, it would be smart to review previous creations. Is there a way to filter contributions by new articles? I know there's a tag for new redirects, but is there a similar option for articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I used Xtools. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • There's also Special:Log/create/Soul Crusher, for creations starting in late June 2018. —Cryptic 23:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

    Special:Contributions/Username; open "Search for contributions", check "Only show edits that are page creations" and hit Search. (I'm slowly working my way through a couple of long-gone editors with a taste for NN Bollywood films that way. Record: 9 new articles in 40 minutes. It takes considerably longer to do a WP:BEFORE search than it took the editor to write.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't, and won't, defend Soul Crusher's recent actions. It is important to note--to at least state it once--that many of his truly notable early articles were repeatedly tagged for notability by serial taggers, when different tags could and should have been used. That is also a big problem. Caro7200 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• DannyS712 is working on an automated process to unreview articles by creator name, I think. I'll post about this to WT:NPPR. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, if there is consensus to mass-unreview pages created and add them all to the curation feed I can do that DannyS712 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• So Soul Crusher says it was their brother vandalising using the computer, and then a neighbor broke in and did the same? I'm not sure whether brother and neighbor were working together, or one after the other. But someone (Soul Crusher, brother, neighbor, whoever) is trolling us here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I checked their last five, and all of them were products from artists that already have an article. If that's what most of the articles are, I recommend redirecting all the ones of dubious notability to the respective artist articles. That's the accepted ATD and would also save a lot of time and effort. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  They may have created the articles for those artists as well. I think most can pass WP:Band, but it's something to take a look at. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for commenting here, I don't know if I can express my opinion here, but the above comment by Soul Crusher about his brother proved me that he is a troll who does not belong here. Not only is he creating a load of articles on non-notable bands and albums that we are having a lot of trouble with, neither he provides reliable sources (there aren't actually, that's why), neither he states that the sources are reliable without explaining why he does think so, but he's also making rude comments. We don't need people like him here. I don't know if his old work and behavior is anything like this, but his recent work and behavior is terrible. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Far above, Floquenbeam asked for feedback on the possibility of removing Soul Crusher's autopatrolled privileges. It appears that this has already been done, but allow me to offer my support for this move as an active member of NPP. All his/her new articles should at least go through the formal and organized review process, which will allow fewer deficient articles to slip though until someone stumbles upon them in the unknown future. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:39, 14 September 2020 (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 editor (from 2 years ago)

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 realize that most cases brought here are for truly outrageous things, but I think my case deserves some action, not so much to redress any grievance I might have, but mainly to put into check an editor who routinely violates policy (even to the point of saying outright he doesn’t have to follow Wikipedia's rules) and is, frankly, a bully. There is no telling how many other people he has mistreated in the past (I shudder to think of the number) but if we can at least reign him in somewhat, maybe he’ll learn not to keep doing it in the future.

My case is slightly different from most, since what happened between us took place two years ago. At that time I didn’t have ready access to the Internet, and since I couldn’t guarantee being able to promptly respond every day to a dispute resolution I just tabled the idea, never dreaming it would take so long for me to get to the point of restoring my Internet. Now that I’m back online I’d like to pursue this, assuming that someone is willing to handle it. I don’t think the 2 year time span is a problem, since everything is documented, and it should be an open and shut case in my favor.

I’m not mentioning any names yet, at least not until I’m sure I’ll get a hearing and I can properly notify the other person. Thanks in advance for any consideration, I remain, __Plato's Stepchild (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Plato's Stepchild. The main issue here is whether or not the bullying and disregard for Wikipedia's policies that you describe is ongoing, or if the editor is inactive, or has mended their ways in the last two years. No adminstrative action will be taken against an editor who retired two years ago, but if bullying is continuing, adminstrators are ready, willing and able to evaluate that behavior and take whatever action is appropriate. So, please mention the username here, and provide diffs of the worst recent examples, or at the very least, provide the exact date and time of the most problematic edits. You also have the option of emailing an administrator (such as myself) to get a preliminary assessment if you are concerned about your privacy. Genuine ongoing bullying will not be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing a key part of Cullen328's comment, there is no point discussing the alleged misbehaviour of an editor who has not edited since February [177]. (The only thing that could be relevant would be looking into problematic edits that may need to be reverted.) A further word of advice, when you open an ANI thread, expect your actions [178] to come under scrutiny as well. Do remember that the way to resolve WP:Content disputes and I'm including the inclusion of large amounts of hidden text in that, is to discuss it on the article talk page and try and reach WP:consensus. And you should focus on your proposed change to the page and not any alleged misbehaviour of the other editor/s involved Talk:M*A*S*H (season 10). Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Having found what I found, but not linking so as not to reveal the IP, I don't see bullying. I see a disagreement and a request not to edit in a particular manner AWA an ANI thread. Oh, I see Nil has reached the same conclusion as I. No concerns noted on user's talk page. Has not edited in a while. Not seeing anything addressable --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Plato's Stepchild, I'll just point out that when you reinstate your preferred contested material, using the edit summary "I corrected the typographical error of a hyphen in the wrong place" is misleading at best. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• (giggling) Ayeah, that was more than a hyphen. I thought edit warring over the MOS was bad, but over hidden text? Oh, my. And while OP c/o bullying, I see incivility from the IP that wanted things the same way as the OP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  From User:Plato's Stepchild, I think we can take all the posts by the IP on Talk:M*A*S*H (season 10) as being from the OP without even having to rely on obviousness/WP:DUCK. I guess this [179] is a sign they've recognised the need to calm things down a bit, unfortunately they still seem more interested in faulting others rather than convincing them of the merit of their changes or the need for 7 copies or whatever of the same very long hidden text in one page. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've added links to these three posts for background:HERE and HERE and HERE. What I see is a certain inability, after years, to let things go. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It is refreshing to see such admirable collegiality in this ANI. Good advice given. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for the response. I want to clear up some misconceptions, which is due to the vagueness of my first post.

Cullen328: For one thing, I may have used the word “bully” in a way you all don’t use it. I was thinking of the schoolyard type, the kind that doesn’t make physical threats, but who simply tries to intimidate others. I was thinking in terms of reverting Good Faith Edits without cause, by refusing to discuss matters and threatening to block them from editing without justification (all of which is in violation of policy). That might not qualify as being a bully to you all, but it does to me. Sorry if I was mistaken in my meaning, I didn’t mean to confuse anyone.

And since User:Deepfriedokra cited the discussion here I’m more than happy to discuss it, since it clearly shows I’m right, and might clear up some misconceptions you have over the facts of the matter.

On 6 April 2019, I corrected the page in question and then that other editor reverted it back to its erroneous state, even though she knew that she was reverting my corrected version to it’s previous erroneous state. Now how can that be justified? If any of you can justify her action, please do so, because I want to hear it.

Boing! said Zebedee , you wrote above, “… when you reinstate[d] your preferred contested material, using the edit summary ‘I corrected the typographical error of a hyphen in the wrong place’ is misleading at best.” Would you please explain the part in bold, as I don’t understand it.

Deepfriedokra , you wrote above, “What I see is a certain inability, after years, to let things go.” Well, why should I “let things go” as you put it, with someone who refused to follow policy regarding good faith edits, the requirement on collaboration, and knowingly and deliberately leaving a page on Wikipedia riddled with errors. Why should anyone just let it go? Are you interested in Wikipedia being the best it can be? Aren’t you to enforce the rules and punish people who knowingly violate them? Have I come to the wrong place? __Plato's Stepchild (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Plato's Stepchild, I know precisely what a bully is on Wikipedia because as an administrator, I have blocked a thousand trolls, racists, profane vandals and other types of bullies. When you wrote in your edit summary "I corrected the typographical error of a hyphen", that was a lie intended to avoid scrutiny. Please tell the truth from now on. Your comments to the other editor invite creation of a new acronym TLTRBIHTA: "Too Long To Read But I Had To Anyway". Not at all a good look. No, administrators do not "punish" editors. Instead, blocks and other sanctions are for the purpose of preventing disruption of the encyclopedia. It is hard for me to see the risk of disruption from an editor who disappeared in February. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Plato's Stepchild: When I say your edit summary is misleading at best, I mean it is not a full summary of what you did, it conceals the main effect of your edit, it is not open and honest about the extent of your change, it does not document your edit in a way that enables others to decide whether to check it, it is avoiding scrutiny, it is hiding the true nature of your motivation, it conceals the fact that you are continuing a slow edit war, it is deceptive, it does not cooperate with the reason we use edit summaries, it conceals your failure to seek consensus, it does not engender trust... are you getting my meaning now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Plato's Stepchild: if you think that discussion shows you're right, that seems to be part of the problem. I looked at the discussion you linked to, as well as the discussion on the article talk page and I did not see any indication of a real WP:consensus for your edits, especially the large amounts of hidden text. In addition you brought up "refusing to discuss matters" but this also gets into the problems with your approach. When I looked at the article talk page and the other discussions, it's very hard to understand the reasons for your edits because instead of focusing on that, you seem to have focused on how wrong other editor's behaviour has allegedly been. If you want to convince people of the merits of your edit, you should be concentrating on that. Why would people want to discuss things with you when instead of explaining why you want a change, you spend all your time telling the editor how evil they are? Of course as others have indicated your misleading edit summary is also a big problem, not least because it leads editors with no explanation for a big part of your edit. Especially in article talk pages where behavioural stuff is largely off-topic. BTW although this clearly involved behavioural issues on your part since it's also in part a content dispute, I'm not sure there if there is any great wish to go into details about the rights and wrongs of your edits, however I strongly suggest you need to reflect on what you've done here. And also bear in my what I said earlier about your behaviour coming under scrutiny in any complaint, especially and no one has specifically mentioned this yet I think, the dreaded WP:boomerang. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

To Cullen328, Nil Einne, Deepfriedokra, Boing! said Zebedee: I apologize for not a full response before this but something came up. I should be able to post something on Thursday - I know you all have been on pins and needles waiting for a response. Sorry about that. __Plato's Stepchild (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well here I go again, trying to talk some sense into people. Let's see what happens...

Holeee smokes, I sure didn’t expect that kind of response up above. You guys never cease to surprise me (which is not a good thing)

I decided that since you all are apparently laboring on some false impressions of what originally happened, I would recapitulate the facts of the matter and give some kind of narrative guide. Back in August 2018, having realized that the page in question contained some errors in the proper format of the Prod. Codes, I decided to correct them. What should have only taken a few minutes of of my life has ballooned into ridiculous proportions. After I had made my verified changes, an editor (I won’t mention him by name, so I’ll just call him The First Editor), without justification, inexplicably reverted my change. I won’t go into detail (it isn’t necessary here) and when he refused to discuss it in any meaningful way, I followed policy and turned to 3rd Opinion for help. That is when the The Unnamed Editor (the one you all have been inexplicably defending) entered the picture. She agreed that I was right and The First Editor was wrong and said I should make my changes. So thrilled was I that I made my changes, and since I had been through what I thought was an ordeal to get this done, I again followed Wikipedia’s policy and inserted the Hidden Text to prevent someone in the future for accidentally changing the codes back to the old format. And all of the sudden everything went sideways when she from out of nowhere reverted my changes (which she had just previously agreed were correct!).

Naturally I thought what she did didn’t make sense (which it didn’t) so I asked her about it. The problem with her (and yes, the problem existed only in her mind) was that apparently she took the Hidden Codes as something aimed at The First Editor. The thing is, he was by that time long gone. He didn’t really give a hoot in a holler about the codes, he just got caught up in it when he mindlessly reverted it at the beginning. And since there was only three people in the known Universe who knew about this, that would only leave her and me. And they clearly weren't direct at her, so what was the damn problem? If only she were here to explain her irrational actions.

Now it would have been great if she had only thought of asking The Really Obvious Question, and since you guys haven’t thought to ask it, I ask it for you: why would I put the hidden text in there? (See, I told you it was really obvious. Kind of makes one wonder why you guys didn’t think of that before now… oh that’s right, you all were too busy attacking my character (which is also against Wikipedia's policy.))

So the reason I did it was was to prevent someone later, maybe years into the future, from looking at the page and erroneously thinking it’s wrong, and deciding to “correct” it. So let’s review why my use of the Hidden Text was proper: 1) Hidden text is a tool that Wikipedia provides to its users and expects it to be used. 2) It is provided by Wikipedia to help editors prevent common mistakes that could be made by future editors. 3) I used it exactly as specified by the instructions on its Help Page. Here, I’ll quote for you: Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake. For example … it may be appropriate to let other editors know about the error to prevent a likely re-insertion of the error.. Which means that I was using it EXACTLY for the reason it was created. So you can see what I did was well within policy. And The Unnamed Editor did not have a legitimate reason to block it. You guys see that don’t you? I’d really appreciate it if you all would address that.

That’s pretty much the jist of the events. (I hope that if I forgot to mention something no one will call me a liar. Once was more than enough.) And so for two years, except for a few brief shining moments, it has been riddled with errors. And it’s because of her that it has been that way. And you guys want to defend that?

Just so I’ll have some idea where you guys are at, I respectfully ask you all to answer the questions below with direct answers:

• Do you agree that for the two years the page has been on Wikipedia riddled with errors?

• Do you agree that The Unnamed Editor is responsible for it?

• Do you agree that her position of “it’s my way or else” w/o a willingness to collaborate is in violation of policy?

• Do you think she should be held accountable for her actions?

Cullen328, When you wrote, “ I know precisely what a bully is on Wikipedia…” I have no idea what you meant. Did you think I said you didn’t know what a bully is? Because if you did, I didn’t, and I don’t know where you got that idea. And then you went off the deep end and accused me of lying, adding, “Please tell the truth from now on.“

For the record, I have always told the truth, and always will (I have no reason not to), and it is just outrageous for you to make such a senseless allegation. You owe me an apology. You suggest creation of “a new acronym TLTRBIHTA”. That’s not an acronym, it’s an abbreviation. An acronym is an abbreviation that forms a pronounceable word, like Scuba, radar, sonar, and NATO; abbreviations like FBI, PTA, and NFL are not acronyms. I just thought I’d mention that for future reference so you won’t embarrass yourself again. I’m sorry you have trouble reading long passages, it’s sometimes required. You also wrote that administrators do not "punish" editors, just block and sanctions them. Blocking and sanctioning are punishments, which is what I originally meant; I’m sorry I’m not so well versed in Wiki-speak, but I’m learning. Let’s see, that’s one, two, three, four, five errors you made in one paragraph. That’s… very interesting.

And for the record you have no right to accuse me of lying, and you certainly have no proof. And if you are a decent person you will apologize to me.

Boing! said Zebedee Pretty much everything in your response has no basis in reality; it is just in your imagination. I was not hiding anything as I had nothing to hide. If you wish to assume bad faith on my part I can’t help that. Just because I forgot to include it doesn’t mean I deliberately did it to hide something. Besides, you can’t actually hide anything on Wikipedia. You have heard of the Diff function, haven’t you? Anything I allegedly tried to hide would be in plain sight – color coded even – and easily detectable. (And from whom would I be hiding it?) Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Nil Einne I’m sorry I just don’t have the energy to answer your post directly right now. And I hope you don’t mind me saying that so far, that is first good message anyone here has left. It provided a lot of things to discuss, which I hope to get to. Thanks for that. __Plato's Stepchild (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I will not apologize to you, Plato's Stepchild, because I consider your edit summary to be a falsehood, and you have not convinced me otherwise. If you want to be pedantic about my use of the word "acronym", go to town. If there are errors in the article, then just fix them. The other editor has been inactive since February. At this point, you are wasting everybody's time, especially your own. Do not type 150 words when five will suffice. Do not hold grudges. Please move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat (or, How I Learnt to Stop Worrying And Love Debating Drive-By Users on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput)

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput&diff=978778247&oldid=978777629 - The user's implying that Indian authorities will include Wikipedia/its editors as accessories in the case. I've reverted it, but this looks like a legal threat to me. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Warned user. It's close but I am going to let this go with a warning. If it recurs then I will block them. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: As a Christian, I take offense at the title of this section. It is vulgar and completely uncalled for. NedFausa (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The section name is on me, not Ad Orientem. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Offended by a Dr. Strangelove allusion? What is the world coming to. Heiro 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Dr. Strangelove allusion was added to replace the offending section name. see [180]. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:13, 17 September 2020 (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:UBX/onemanonewoman

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

---

Given Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions states:

“

• Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
• Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

”

How on earth has this been allowed to exist for years, and survived three AfDs? Besides being a useful guide to play spot the homophobe on Wikipedia, how is this permitted? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Because those MfD discussions did not gain consensus to delete it, and hence it wasn't deleted - it's not such an urgent and blatant violation of anything that an ANI discussion is going to resurrect speedy criterion T1. The last MfD was four years ago - it's quite possible attitudes have changed since then, so if you feel it does cross the line of "divisive and inflammatory" with changing attitudes, I'd suggest you re-nominate it! ~ mazca ^talk 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

[[181]]

VEry well. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination - however, that process seems broken when two people can say non-policy-based arguments about something that's clearly in violation of policy, and it doesn't get deleted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 00:15, 17 September 2020 (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:Telsho introducing errors, attacks against other editors

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapture&diff=prev&oldid=978510536 I reverted an IP editor who introduced a blatant error to Rapture. Rapture applies to Christian believers, not "all "good" people". Sources in article say this, also the cliff notes at Britannica say this.

I was therefore immensely surprised when User:Telsho not only reverted me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapture&diff=978510862&oldid=978510536 but also had the gall to place a vandalism notice on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maria_Gemmi&oldid=978510891. I attempted to discuss this with User:Telsho on their talk page, showing them the facts and expressing my outrage at their behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Telsho&diff=978511548&oldid=978464033, when then placed a " Harassment of other users" warning on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maria_Gemmi&diff=978512248&oldid=978510891 .

As discussion with User:Telsho is fruitless, and since they are introducing blatant errors to Wikipedia articles and attacking me personally, I request that a moderator dispense justice upon User:Telsho's misdeeds.Maria Gemmi (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Um, when did I attacked you personally? You're getting this worked up over 2 template notices? Telsho (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

YOU Telsho, placed a blatant ERROR in Rapture, STRIKE ONE. YOU Telsho, then placed a template accusing me of being a vandal, STRIKE TWO. YOU Telsho, after I complained about YOUR ERROR and YOUR ATTACK against me, accused me of harassment on my talk page, STRIKE THREE. And still no apology. Either you are careless in your reverts and "templates", or you are deliberately targeting me. Either way, moderators should stop this.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I can see nowhere that Telsho has accused you of being a vandal. You are severely overreacting and I suggest you calm down. Next time, when you revert other editors please provide a clear reason in the edit summary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

MSGJ In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maria_Gemmi&oldid=978510891 it says my contributions to Rapture do " do not conform to our policies" and at the bottom it says "Template:uw-vandalism1". That is an accusation of vandalism. My edit not only was not vandalism, but it corrected a gross error. Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see that now. In that case I would say it was an incorrect revert by Telsho but not something to get worked up about. Please use the edit summary as advised previously and this kind of situation will be much less likely to occur. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maria Gemmi: that was a very mild message by Telsho, which even included a friendly welcome message. The advice to be careful about how you communicate with other editors, seems to be warranted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A welcome message along with an accusation that I committed vandalism. If there is vandalism here, it is by Telsho - [182]. Talking with them over this gets me another template. Still no apology by Telsho. Still no taking back their FALSE ACCUSATION. I came here to the moderators after I attempted to talk to them calmly.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is this the "attack" you are complaining about? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Both messages placed on my talk page by Telsho are attacks that have no basis in reality.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maria Gemmi I'm sorry you received those messages, they were not appropriate. Telsho - you need to be more careful with templated messages, and with communication in general. If you give someone a vandalism template and they come to your talk page to demand an explanation, you should engage with them. Blanking their message and giving them a harassment template is not appropriate. If you aren't willing to explain your actions when people ask you to, perhaps you shouldn't be using templates like that in the first place. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maria Gemmi is overreacting just a bit, but Telsho started this mess by leaving those templates. Telsho, WP:vandalism is ONLY edits which are designed to undermine the encyclopedia. Not things you disagree with, not things with errors, but only things that are intentionally trying to undermine the accuracy of the encyclopedia. Tagging an edit you disagree with (but is arguably a good faith edit) as vandalism is uncivil, don't do that. For that matter, use your own words instead of templates, and WP:Assume good faith in other's edits when it clearly isn't vandalism. Now lets go back to editing articles... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

67.61.89.32 again

• 67.61.89.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SpaceX Merlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#67.61.89.32

At 12:00, 11 September 2020 the previous ANI report was archived.[183]

At 19:02, 11 September 2020, 67.61.89.32 -- who got the ANI flu the moment he was reported -- miraculously recovered and went back to edit warring his OR into the page.

May we please have a one or two year partial block of 67.61.89.32 from SpaceX Merlin? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that a pointed question has been posted to 67.61.89.32's talk page. It will be interesting to see whether he got a sudden relapse of the ANI flu when I posted this report. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been over two days, and once again 67.61.89.32 stopped editing as soon as the ANI report was filed. Should we go another round and see if he is going to resume his disruptive editing as soon as this gets archived, or should we simply apply a lengthy partial block from the particular page he keeps disrupting?

Ping EdJohnston. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I gave the IP a final warning here. If he reverts again, let me know. Not everybody likes partial blocks. I'd prefer to issue a regular block if the behavior resumes, since the person has had plenty of warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: the user has reverted again. Themillofkeytone (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked one week per the above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Discography vandalism

Tornadoguy (talk · contribs) has been making several low quality edits. Their modus operandi is to use unreliable sources to claim that random songs are singles, despite no evidence in the source that the song actually is a single. When reverted, they immediately smash the undo button. Attempts to warn the user on their talk page have been completely fruitless. Their editing patterns smack of WP:NOTHERE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bump; user is at it again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Edit warring, disruptive editing, has never communicated or used an edit summary; blocked indefinitely until those issues are addressed. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Mariolovr

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.

---

Mariolovr (talk · contribs) has had an account for just four days and has been disruptive ever since. His edit history shows his first edit was to create a user page, then made an obvious-mistake edit to a page and reverted it (never returning to that article). They launched into a series of aggressive pro-animal rights edits to 22+ articles, including inserting images, and when reverted he immediately edit warred (on multiple pages). He has participated in discussions on 13 of these article's Talk pages, and 6 editors have already cautioned him on his User talk page. [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] I believe he's not a new user, perhaps a resurrection after a block. He has already received a 48 hour partial-block [189] [190] for 3 specific pages, but it hasn't stopped his edit warring behavior which has continued on other pages. I encountered him when he edited a page that is on my WatchList. I researched several of his edits, discovered the edit warring, and I removed some of the FRINGE material he was inserting, after which he started to edit war with me and argue on Talk page. I believe he may be connected with GaultierA and wikimedia user Shpernik088.

Notifying other editors who Mariolovr has butted with in the last 4 days: @Eric Herboso: @Flyer22 Frozen: @Escape Orbit: @Praxidicae: @Primefac: @Sdio7: @MrOllie:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the reported user's contributions, it's clear that they have a POV regarding animal rights, and their edits to articles reflect that very clearly. From adding the {{censor}} template to the talk pages of articles that this user has edited (1, 2, 3) to edit warring (see history, see warning) in order to revert content that is pro-animal right biased (1, 2). Other edits add obvious POV to animal-rights related articles (1, 2, and many others). This is clearly a bigger problem than edit warring; it's a POV that's obviously spilling onto multiple articles, and likely won't stop until action is taken. Is a topic ban appropriate here? Or do we move straight to an indefinite block? Input and opinions would be appreciated. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban would do it, because he's editing article unrelated to animal rights and inserting a pro animal rights viewpoint into them... such as Murder, Beef, Dog food, Live export, Smithfield Foods. In the Horse meat article he inserted a series of gruesome images. Reading the edit-history of some other articles, other editors have been deleting images he was inserting. Normal Op (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not how topic bans work. if someone is topic banned from animal rights they cannot add or edit animal-rights-related material on any page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that "gruesome image" I added to the Horse Meat article was an image of a fresh horse carcass, not a random image of gruesomeness. Normal Op also took issue with me adding images of horse slaughter the previously imageless Horse Slaughter article, so take that as you will. Mariolovr (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't expect this level of opposition, but I guess I now need to explain myself. First of all, I don't have a pro-animal rights POV. I actually disagree with most of what I include, but I understand my bias, which makes me an excellent person to talk about such matters. If you look at the edits I make, you'll see that they're all pretty neutral. I either change wikipedia's stance from a pro-industry perspective to a neutral one or when I add a AR perspective, I make sure to clarify that it isn't wikipedia's position. I'll admit I'm not perfect, and I have made some mistakes. It's just really hard to be neutral. However, most of the opposition I've received hasn't been over those mistakes, but it has been from editors who confuse a neutral perspective with a pro-animal rights perspective.

Second, I'm sorry for edit warring. I didn't realize it was that big of a deal and thought that was just how editors communicated. I'm still getting used to the rules here, which are different from other wikis I've edited. I was also frustrated that some people (most of those tagged here) kept reverting all of my work without explanation. You can see I've started using the talk page more now. Also, I'm not those other editors. Seems like a strange thing to care about though. Mariolovr (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr - First of all, I highly appreciate your apology in regards to edit warring, and I acknowledge it. However, I still have concerns in regards to your edits. Though you say here that you don't have a point of view on this topic area, your edits show differently. I understand that you're saying that you have an opposing viewpoint than what you're actually editing, but even that "opposing viewpoint" represents a point of view that isn't neutral. To summarize, it's not your words, but your edits that show great concern. When I (or anyone else) investigate someone for their underlying issues on the project, we take everything into account - it's not just the edits you make that manually add content to articles, but also your behaviors (such as edit warring), any reverts you make restoring content, any comments you make in discussions, and any other edits that you've made to the project. Remember that you're responsible for all content that you add to an article, whether it be a manual edit, a revert with the use of the "undo" button, or any other method. In the short time that you've been an editor here, you've demonstrated with your edits and behavior that there is need for concern in regards to the animal rights topic area. What other topics on Wikipedia have you edited or contributed to? My point is that I think that you should spend some time reviewing and actually understanding Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, including Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Editors should edit articles, subjects, and topics with the mindset that they're neutral with the topic that they're modifying. Otherwise, you'll insert non-neutral points of view to those articles, and your edits won't be in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. How can one edit an article and expect to comply with these policies if they don't have a neutral mindset and opinion themselves? You have to understand that the concerns expressed here are legitimate, and your edits clearly support these concerns. I highly recommend and encourage you to edit in topics elsewhere, and build your experience on Wikipedia using articles and page where these concerns won't interfere. Otherwise, you may be facing sanctions if these problems continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm only interested in animal rights, animal agriculture, etc. It didn't realize there was an issue with only contributing to a certain niche topics. But to put your mind at ease, I don't have any conflicts of interest, and like I said, I do aim to be neutral. That's what's gotten me into this mess (and the edit warring). Mariolovr (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr - I understand, and I appreciate the explanation. It's often that new users trip into pitfalls and learn things the hard way. I certainly have! Have you considered going through and completing the new user tutorial? I think it'll help you a lot... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that I see how badly things can go wrong from a misunderstanding of the rules, I should probably check that out. Mariolovr (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr - Please do! I really want to see you successful here. I hope that what you're saying is correct, and that this is a big misunderstanding. It's your actions following this discussion that will show just that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, while I have your attention, I'd just like to let you know that I've noticed Smithfield foods seems to be edited by a lot of day-old IPs that only write it in a good light. You might want to look into that. Mariolovr (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• The most interesting edit I see he did are these two reverts [191] [192] where Mariolovr undid two edits by CommonsDelinker from 2020-08-16 [193] [194] which were to remove the use of two images that had been deleted. These two images [195] and [196] were both created on 2016-12-28 by Shpernik088 and this year went through some sort of automated copyright issue, followed by an OTRS ticket on 2020-08-26 and the claim was removed on 9/1, 9/8 and 9/14. (I'm unfamiliar with OTRS and image copyright claim procedures, so I don't know how to interpret the three "removed claims".) The editor who put these images into Avian influenza was GaultierA on 2020-02-15. GaultierA (SPA) only edited for 3 days in February 2020, but on very similar topics: animal rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that I reverted all of the edits made by CommonsDelinker regarding shpernik's images, not just gultierA's. I started there because I had just made a edit regarding culling, which is one of my main interests, and then noticed the error after perusing the article's history. Mariolovr (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick technical correction: Above, Normal_Op attempted to notify other editors who @Mariolovr had "butted with in the last 4 days" (@Eric Herboso: @Flyer22 Frozen: @Escape Orbit: @Praxidicae: @Primefac: @Sdio7: @MrOllie:). However, the ping failed because the edit was not immediately signed. This is a known bug listed on Help:Notifications#Known_bugs. I'm therefore pinging them now on Normal_Op's behalf. — Eric Herboso 08:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I wondered why no one showed up. Normal Op (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just looking in to say I think Mariolovr is misguided, rather than being deliberately disruptive. If they accept the suggestions offered above, and learn not to be quite so insistent about getting their edits into an article against all opposition, they may yet prove to be a productive contributor. The indications are good. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that Mariolovr should disclose their previous accounts. Take a look at their five hour burst of editing on September 10 that constituted the first edits by this account. It strains credulity to think that this is the work of a brand new editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean like a COI? I've already talked about that. I have no COI. This is my first Wikipedia account. I do have experience editing other wikis though, and I also found the visual editor very intuitive. That's probably why it seems like I'm more familiar with the markup/syntax than other new users. Mariolovr (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've had enough of Mariolovr! After he came here to this ANI and expressed contrition and promised to read policy and be better, I started to direct him to policy and explain things to him. Instead, he has continued being argumentative, aggressive, constantly debates policy, and has insulted me several times. His earlier aggressive edit warring has morphed into incessant arguments on Talk pages. If you'd like to see examples, here are three threads.
  • Talk:Animal Liberation Front#ARM content
  • Talk:Murder#‎Animal rights FRINGE
  • Talk:Horse slaughter#‎Removal of images

Mariolovr has expressed several times that he is an animal rights advocate and his actions show that (ADVOCACY, ACTIVIST). I'm done giving the newbie leeway. Holy cow, has it only been 24 hours since this ANI was started? I could have sworn three days had passed! Normal Op (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So first this person reports me for not using the talk page, and then they report me for using it? Where is the logic in that? They then lie about me saying I have "insulted them" and "expressed several times that I am an animal rights advocate" without any proof. This person is clearly just trying to abuse the reporting system to bully me into accepting their POV. Mariolovr (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Note, this person has had issues with pov pushing in the past, see: this ANI and this newer ANI where they were actually placed on a topic ban a few weeks ago. @Atsme:, @CaptainEek:, and @PearlSt82: I see you have had similar issues with this editor, so I'm curious about your thoughts on this matter. Mariolovr (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Those links are from 2019. Normal Op (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This editor is continuing to disrupt articles relating to animal welfare, and is now deleting sourced content from articles, with the rationalisation that the sources do not support the content.

In this edit the editor removes a quote about the rational for the enactment of the laws as unsourced, but the source given includes the quote "Rather, the Bill targets the conduct of those who go well beyond that, those who have an intention to incite others to commit unlawful trespass or other offences in the homes and on the lands of our farmers", attributed to Senator McKenzie.

In this edit the editor removed a large chunk of text explaining reasons that were put forward for the introduction of the law claiming there are no sources backing them up, but the source included in that paragraph includes all of these reasons under the section "New laws sparked by backlash at Aussie Farms map".

Despite multiple editors suggesting that they contribute to articles in areas where they don't have a conflict of interest until they have experience to write in an unbiased manner they continue to exclusively contribute to articles on animal welfare. Since their purpose here seems to be POV pushing rather than writing an encyclopedia I suggest that a topic ban / WP:NOTHERE block is appropriate. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I must have missed that. It was all sourced by a single citation at the end of that paragraph, but I still should have read it more closely. I've undone those edits and added citations to each of the other sentences missing one. Thanks for catching that error. I wish you would have said something on the talk page first though. Mariolovr (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The first quote was included in the reference immediately adjacent to it, the second section was properly referenced until you inserted a large chunk of text into the centre of the paragraph.

Even so your edits to the page indicate a significant amount of bias - you added multiple case studies to the page full of quotes from animal rights activists and legal experts about how terrible the laws were, then deleted large chunks of text from people of the opposing view without checking the referencing properly.

I would also like to add that this note that you added is an violation of WP:SYNTHESIS in which you're trying to get readers to draw conclusions between "farmers representing 41% of sows report raids by animal rights activists" and "60% of sows are owned by 2% of farmers", despite neither source indicating any type of overlap.

You clearly have extremely strong views about animal rights, but this makes you unsuitable to edit articles about it because you will inevitably end up introducing unintentional bias. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

While he writes he is PRO animal rights and simultaneously demonstrates this bias with targeted edits showing an anti-slaughter viewpoint, he has since denied being pro animal rights while continuing the same edit bias. Paradoxically, today he added a collection of userboxes to his user page indicating he's a heavy meat eater in complete contradiction to his edit bis. This editor is demonstrating a lack of judgment in not taking Wikipedia policies/guidelines seriously, and he doesn't appear to have taken any editor's advice seriously (and he's had plenty from multiple editors). The need to constantly double-check his edits and revert most of them, shows a disruption to the project. Normal Op (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

These kind of attacks and nitpicking are incredibly exhausting. I am free to personalize my user page as I wish, and it's not a even contradiction. I like meat, which is why I like editing these kind of articles, but you don't have to be a level 100 vegan to recognize a pro-meat / anti-animal-rights bias. This behaviour of yours is is extremely tribalistic and detrimetal to building an encyclopedia. Your editing history clearly shows that you have an anti-animal-rights bias, which leads me to believe that you only feel a need to "double check and revert" all of my edits with little to no explanation is simply because they often don't align with your POV. I mean, you think adding images of horse slaughter to the horse slaughter article is an "anti-slaughter viewpoint". Mariolovr (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Their claim that they don't have a pro-animal rights viewpoint and that they disagree with what they write is obviously nonsense. They've spent the last week on commons uploading hundreds of images from animal rights charities and tagging them as "Massacres". They've spent the last few hours adding seemingly every legal case arising from Ag-gag laws to the article, sourced to local news sites from all over Australia, then deleted large chunks of content without even checking the sources that are already there. It seems more like a distraction tactic rather than a view they actually hold. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just calling me a liar and not assuming good faith. That's not very nice. My only "strong views about animal rights" are that all aspects should be displayed in a neutral and appropriate manner. I already undid my edits regarding that mistake in the ag-gag article and apologised as soon as I realized what happened. There's no need to beat that dead horse. You want me to "write in an unbiased manner," but even when I do everything you ask, I'm still critcised. If you have other issues with the content, then we can talk about it on the talk page. Yes, I also upload images of animal slaughter, but that doesn't mean I like looking at them, nor does it imply anything other than the fact I upload images of animal slaughter. I just think they have an extremely high educational value. The "massacres" metadata thing was definitely an accidental error on my part though, but I didn't do it to all of them, that's a lie; it happened the first time I uploaded images there and 'massacres' was what was autoselected after I searched for 'slaughter'. I was rushing to get that last bit done after uploading photos and didn't realize my mistake until they were all submitted. I would have removed it, but I don't really understand the metadata thing. If you know how, please do. You can see I avoided that mistake in the rest of my uploads. Also, could you explain how adding legal cases regarding ag-gag to the legal section of an article about ag-gag is biased? Isn't that just contributing to the article? Mariolovr (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The 887 photos Mariolovr uploaded on wikimedia in the last few days seem to have been obtained from https://animaux.l214.com/, a website run by L214, a French animal rights organization "focused on animals used in food production (meat, milk, eggs, fish), and revealing their conditions of breeding, transport, fishing and slaughter." 887 photos, predominantly showing gory horse and rabbit slaughter scenes. Normal Op (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Prior to my contributions, there was a distinct lack of animal slaughter images, especially regarding horses and rabbits. Are you suggesting I should be sanctioned because you can't handle the truth? Mariolovr (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Normal Op (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I take that as a yes. Mariolovr (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While clinging to WP:CENSOR to rationalize your actions, you have failed to follow the basics of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. You have insulted me at every turn whenever I have tried to converse with you, and goaded me out of silence when I tried to ignore you. You think I'm a sensitive weenie over your "gruesome photos"? Hah! I have both watched and participated in slaughtering and butchering of several species of animal for consumption. So if you think I can't stand looking at your "gruesome photos", think again. But I would never photograph or distribute photographs of gruesome agricultural necessities and purposely show them to people who are not planning on looking at gruesome photographs. It's as welcome as taking photographs at a death-row prisoner's execution to show your friends back home. We're a little more civilized here in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again you lie and say I've not followed the correct style (without any proof), but every image I've added has been pertinent and the highest quality I could find.

Once again you lie and say I've added images to show them them unexpectedly (still without proof), but I've only put these images in their relevant articles, which have been well within the "principle of least astonishment". Like I said to you previously, if someone is shocked by an image of horse slaughter on Horse slaughter, that is not anyone's fault but theirs. Really, it's obvious to anyone that you're hiding your inherent discomfort with these images behind a supposed moral high ground of protecting some unsuspecting innocents from witnessing gruesome images. Why else would you go through such lengths to point out my commons history? I'm honestly surprised you haven't started saying its "for the children!"

Once again you lie and say I've insulted you (also without proof), but I've been as unreasonably civil with you as possible, especially considering the immense frustration your constant lies, attacks, and refusal to compromise have caused me. This just seems like a futile attempt to grab anything you can to get the admins involved.

At this point, we're just repeating ourselves and I don't think either of us have anything of value left to say. Can we just end this discussion now? The admins obviously have better things to do. Mariolovr (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Cullen328, there is behavior that strongly suggests a previous account. Their very first edit was to their own user page. That gets rid of the red user name. They made 400 edits in less than a week and many of the edits were warnings to other editors. I see several editors are expressing others concerns above. I certainly share those as well. Springee (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

These accusations are getting tiresome. This is definitely my first and only account. Like I've said, I have experience editing other wikis, and that amount of edits is actually less than my average for those other projects. I made a blank user page because I saw other users here had blank user pages. Even Springee has a blank user page. I've only warned other editors a few times, and I did it because I knew they were breaking the rules, which I've learned from over a decade of hearing news about wikipedia, and I also read up a bit on wikipedia's rules before making my account since I was worried about making mistakes (funny how that seems to have backfired). The rules aren't too different from the rules of other wikis. So far, anyone making this claim has provided no concrete evidence and is only vaguely speculating. Mariolovr (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Our social policies are not a suicide pact. I have blocked Mariolovr indefinitely for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 15:48, 18 September 2020 (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.

Reply after close: Cullen328, just stating that I was in the process of replying on Tuesday night, but then a hurricane hit. But, yes, this editor is obviously not new. I asked the editor about it and then queried Sandstein about it. And you can see how Mariolovr responded here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hills, and dying on them

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

---

I feel this edit warrants something more forceful than a polite warning. It's their first edit, and therefore first transgression. Reading the policies, I couldn't quite figure out what it considers appropriate in such cases. Their refusal to reconsider seems to be relevant. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef. I would assert that anyone using the phrase "wikicucks" is incapable of ever being useful around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2020 (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.

Talk page guideline enforcement

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.

---

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

This editor has been informed multiple times about the behavioral guidelines of signing and indenting posts. While WP:INDENT is not a guideline itself, it does leave a link to WP:Talk page guidelines#Layout which shows that indenting IS a behavioral guideline.

Examples: [197][198][199][200]

My personal favorite: [201]

After I saw the recent edits to their user talk page in my watchlist (it was still on there after I templated them using Twinkle), I left this message in an attempt to get that admin to notice Cathradgenation's history of not indenting. Then, I received this message on my talk page. First of all, I did not like being accused of being friends with a user that I, quite frankly, do not want to be associated with at all. I have no affiliation with SPECIFICO and after SPECIFICO's recent behavior, I don't want to be affiliated at all. I hope it's not what Cathrad meant, but it makes it sound like I am trying to get revenge or something. Second of all, saying things like I am not an expert at all of Wikipedia's rules, n so not always sure I am indenting correctly or commenting in the right venue and And not indenting properly or signing right is not a reason that you can ban someone from Wikipedia. Threats like that are inappropriate as well is pretty questionable to me considering they've been informed about indenting multiple times. Like I mentioned before, this is getting into WP:NOTGETTINGIT territory in my opinion.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The notion that an editor should be subject to administrative sanctions for a triviality like errors in indentation is ludicrous, Bait30. I am an adminstrator and have been editing for 11 years, and I still make mistakes in indentation. Feel free to correct my mistakes but please do not call for me to be disciplined. That's pedantry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

I mean for the most part, I agree. I'm not perfect either; I've forgotten to sign things too. But I do disagree with the way you're contextualizing this. In my view, it's not just a mistake every now and then. They have been given links multiple times to WP:INDENT and WP:SIGNATURE. They even responded without indenting or signing by saying Thanks, understood [202]. Then within the next couple of days, they left these messages without signatures and/or indenting [203][204][205]. And still after that, more of the same: [206][207][208][209][210][211]. And yeah, I know talk page guidelines are a silly thing to bring up at ANI, but I believe these edits can be indicative of Cathradgenation's editing behavior as a whole.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person that SPECIFICO and Balt30 have said should be the subject of administrative sanctions for errors in indentation. I admit that I am not the most experienced Wikipedia editor-- in part because I have contributed more than 3,000 edits without having to converse with others. I have few contributions ever reverted, and have previously found Wikipedia to be a safe, collegial and collaborative venue for people such as myself to contribute to a venture I love. Over the last few months, however, I have found myself having been harassed repeatedly by SPECIFICO.

If one examines past formal administrative sanctions regarding SPEIFICO, one will find that administrators have TWICE sanctioned SPECIFICO, one set or both sets of sanctions still pending. In both cases, women accused him of harassing them; he said he was instead bothered by them. SPECIFICO was found by the administrators to have indeed harassed one of the woman; his counter complaint against her was determined by the administrators to be unfounded. Wikipedia's administrators ordered him to stay away from her, which I would hope underscores that this person is potentially dangerous. Moreover, a review of SPECIFICO's talk pages shows that there have been multiple complaints against him for making inappropriate comments to transgendered persons.

I would like to quote from one administrative ban in place against SPECIFICO currently: "The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed one-way interaction ban preventing SPECIFICO... SPECIFICO is cautioned that if they continue to disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions."

Now this person SPECIFICO has focused or fixated on me as someone he wants to harass online. I feel that this person has engaged in an online stalking. The pages that I contribute to and edit are pages that SPECIFICO has had no previous involvement with or has edited before.

In fact, he rarely edits; most of his involvement on Wikipedia regards disputes with other editors and arbitration complaints he files against others, which are more often than not found not to have merit, and also (unsuccessfully defending himself against others who file them against him.)

This person has engaged in a virtual online stalking. As soon as I do an edit-- on a page he has not been previously edited or been involved with-- sometimes within hours, sometimes within minutes, he instantly reverts my entire contribution for either a frivolous reason or none stated at all. I believe he is dong this because he had previously attempted to engage me in conversation and I was unresponsive. I should note my complaint is similar to that of another woman he has harassed-- and who he is currently sanctioned for having done so! I believe he bothers people like myself to engage us as a way of making new acquaintances. He reverts some poor person, and then they have to chat with him-- and if they ignore them, he escalates his aggressive behavior.

At this point, I think I might just shut down my account and no longer edit or contribute to Wikipedia because this person will never leave me alone-- and has left me afraid of them. What I find a bit distressing is that there is already a voluminous record of sanctions imposed against him-- two that were formally put in place, and I think still in place, in addition to multiple complaints from individuals in the transgendered community during which he has made demeaning comments about.

Administrators have already sanctioned and forbidden SPECIFICO from contacting a woman named Carol. Her account, which the administrators considered credible enough to sanction SPECIFICO for, is very much like my own experience. This is what she said in part in her account:

"I have been under unrelenting Wikihounding from SPECIFICO for more than a year. See especially the April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results. Staying away from certain articles and ignoring his following me to to articles he's never edited before hasn't stopped it. Failing to respond at all often was difficult once his Wikihounding started at the Gender Gap task force.

"Thus I brought it up at ANI that SPECIFICO's motivation for disrupting the project seemed to be more animus of me personally (as others have noted in the ANI, on the GGTF talk page, on his talk page and even here). (Note I had intended to take other action regarding SPECIFICO on the Wikihounding issue, but this seemed the more pressing matter.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)"

https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF

Finally, one more bizarre thing has occurred as I was typing my response. In the middle of writing it, someone has commented or complained that I had not properly signed these comments-- while I was till writing them! Please see below. I believe that they are written by SPECIFICO himself or someone associated with him. Literally, anytime I come online at all on Wikipedia anymore I am met with a comment such as the one below, or one on my home page, and feel very threatened and upset. We are in a pandemic and I work two jobs currently just to get by. I have loved being a Wikipedian and contributing. I believe I have no choice but to sometime soon just delete my account because I find this person simply too frightening. I hope that if Wikipedia sanctions him enough times, and receives enough complaints, perhaps you will take some action. Cathradgenations (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure enough, here you are, Cathradgenations, and, indeed, you're not signing or indenting. So, how can we help you improve? Have you perhaps read Help:Talk pages yet? --Bsherr (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please at least try to indent when using posting on a talk page. From a quick look at your contributions, it does not look like you've ever tried to indent, and I can understand why that could frustrate the multiple users who have asked you to do this. I'm sure others would greatly appreciate it if you would at least try to do it, it would go farther than you think in showing good faith. I also noticed that you've been asked about six times, including once by myself, to review Help:Minor edit, yet you're still marking some pretty major edits as minor, such as these few edits from the last few days ([212], [213], [214], and this diff from within the last 24 hours). In short, if an editor (or in this case, multiple editors) tries to address an issue with you, please at least listen to what they have to say. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean c'mon now. This is ridiculous. [215]  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, you said: Finally, one more bizarre thing has occurred as I was typing my response. In the middle of writing it, someone has commented or complained that I had not properly signed these comments-- while I was till writing them! Please see below. I believe that they are written by SPECIFICO or someone associated with him. Literally, anytime I come online at all on Wikipedia anymore I am met with a comment such as the one below, or one on my home page, and feel very threatened and upset. You seem to be referring to Bsherr's response right above mine. Bsherr was nice enough to sign your post for you, and his note to you was extremely polite and his offer to help you was very kind. If you feel threatened and upset by that note, well, I really don't know what to say. (Also, please see WP:Casting aspersions, it'll help you avoid trouble in the future.) Best, Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I signed my own post, not Bsbearr. I don't even think another person can sign your posts for you. I was not so much concerned with Bsherr's comments than yours. In the context of SPECIFICO's harrassment/stalking of another woman almost exactly what he has done to me, any reasonable person would be upset. The tone of your comments, in context of that, combined with somehow only moments after I come online, either SPECIFICO or someone like you harasses me, is disturbing, something you don't get. That this is the same exact thing this other woman Carol had to go through for a year also makes it disturbing. Cathradgenations (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-indentation is the least problem here. I recently warned Cathradgenations against further harassment and further aspersions against SPECIFICO, telling them not to post on SPECIFICO's page again.[216][217] They have complied with the last injunction and not posted on S's page, but apparently the urge to go on about SPECIFICO somewhere is irresistible. So we get the above post, more than a screenful on my good big screen, where Cathradgenations spends two sentences replying to the matter at hand, before going on to go on about SPECIFICO, making aspersions without diffs (compare my repeated warning against that very thing on their page yesterday plus also advice from Kolya Butternut), dragging up their history and even suggesting that Bsherr, who gives kindly advice above, is an incarnation of SPECIFICO! This is ridiculous. I have blocked Cathradgenations for 48 hours for violations of WP:IDHT and civility. BTW, Cathradgenations, you are mistaken in believing that when you have posted what looks like a reply, nobody else gets to post (doing so is "bizarre" in your opinion) because you may want to add something. Please post your whole comment at once. And if you don't, and somebody posts after your first installment, then post the rest of your remarks below them, not above, confusing the chronology of the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

Wow. I thought it was an unsigned post, but I guess it was a 35 minute "work-in-progress"? Bishonen, do you feel we should close this now, or do you want to hold it open until the block expires to see what happens? --Bsherr (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC) (A/K/A "BS bear" A/K/A Specifico? Looks like I have some new entries for our Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused!)

Please close it. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 17 September 2020 (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:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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.

---

Declining edits because of MSM politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.103.153 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's working as designed. I suggest you read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:Verifiability before attempting to make further edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:22, 18 September 2020 (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 adding unsourced additions to NFL articles

IP User talk:2600:1700:7714:2200:515E:68C4:DBB4:6113 has only made large, unsourced additions to NFL player articles while also not adhering to basic formatting. The IP has completely ignored all four warnings as well as an additional message. Recommending a short block so the IP acknowledges warnings about unsourced additions to BLPs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Shannon Faulkner

Please rev/delete the defamatory edits, and block the IP from Citadel. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Carleboo editing only in user space

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.

---

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

Since 11/30/17 and 9/11/20, Carleboo was not being here to contribute and build the encyclopedia because I noticed that this user edits only in its own userpage. Carleboo's userpage turns out to be looking like a fake article because it talks about "Simpkins". And Simpkins is not actually a real band. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The page has been deleted under U5. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, but I reported this user before its user page was deleted. Also, Carleboo did not contribute to any other Wikipedia pages but its own user page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Carleboo has been registered since 2017 and has made zero contributions, instead, the user has used their own user page as a webhost. I strongly believe an indef block should be implemented seeing that there is no benefit in keeping the user around. Jerm (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The contributions were removed after this user's page was deleted because its page looked like a fake article. Also, if the page you have edited is deleted, the contributions get removed from the deleted page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I already know that. Carleboo made no contributions outside of their user page. I was just making a suggestion rather than a proposal to have the user blocked, but now I'm realizing Carleboo won't cause any trouble seeing how there's no editing from the user. I see no more issues concerning Carleboo. Can someone go ahead and close this as resolved? Jerm (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The userpage was a translation of the article sv:Simpkins on Swedish Wikipedia, which Carleboo has edited extensively. Carleboo is an SPA on sv wiki, editing only the Simpkins article. Presumably the translation on their English userpage, though misplaced, was meant as a first step in publishing the article on en.wiki. This might could be a poor idea, as even the Swedish version is completely unreferenced. But the Swedish version is not our problem, and I agree with Jerm that there's not much reason to block. Please close. Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 17 September 2020 (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:Caseyph and QAnon

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

---

In Special:Diff/979151198, Caseyph (talk · contribs · count) removed 1,347 characters from the QAnon article with an edit summary that does not adequately explain the changes. After I reverted the edit and posted a warning on User talk:Caseyph, Caseyph insisted in User talk:Newslinger § WTF? that they did not make the edit despite the existence of the diff. Caseyph also stated that they do not believe that anyone else has access to their account.

There are two possibilities here: either Caseyph's account is compromised, or Caseyph is not telling the truth. I am inclined to believe the latter, because of the edit summary in Special:Diff/979151198 ("collusion" is red herring used by Russia to coverup the real crime of "conspiracy" is an actual crime. Using the term "collusion" is propaganda.). The edit summary is similar in nature to Caseyph's previous edits of the QAnon article:

1. Special:Diff/978021571: Changed collusion to conspiracy with the edit summary "collusion" is red herring. "conspiracy" is an actual crime., marked as a minor edit
2. Special:Diff/978072908: Changed collusion to conspiracy, undoing another editor's reversion, marked as a minor edit
3. Special:Diff/978077227: Changed collusion to conspiracy, undoing another editor's reversion, marked as a minor edit
4. Special:Diff/978080285: Changed collude to conspire with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit
5. Special:Diff/978271809: Changed collusion to conspiracy and collude to conspire, undoing another editor's reversion, marked as a minor edit

If Caseyph made the edit in Special:Diff/979151198, and then denied having made the edit, this would be a case of disruptive editing. Otherwise, Caseyph's account is compromised and needs to be secured. Please feel free to propose suggestions for recourse. — Newslinger talk 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This action is consistent with Caseyph having edited an old revision and (intentionally or not) wiping out the later changes. No comment on Caseyph's other edits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Either the user is lying, their account is compromised, or they're a POV-pushing edit warrior who's incompetently implementing sweeping reversions of large amounts of content over their attempts to change one word, and then denying that they had ever done so, even in the face of diffs that are being directly provided to them. Either way, this user has a lot of problems to work through if they want to continue editing here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• And talk page access revoked after this. I think we're done here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:03, 19 September 2020 (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.

Renatoaferreira21

User's sole activity is creating articles bordering on G1, see Siren Ambulance Japan and Police Siren Japan. I request an admin evaluate WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. Not quite a vandalism-only account, but getting close. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from the AfD. I wanted to look into the subject matter but the article was G1. Regarding this ANI I can only see one article created by the editor. Also WP:DONTBITE the account is new - and the editor likely needs guidance. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: if you believe you can solve this with guidance, I suggest you proceed swiftly. Since this ANI started Renatoaferreira21 created three similar articles (Paldey, Machine Noise, Loud Noise3 Loop.ogg) with similar content that was speedy deleted for similar reasons. Renatoaferreira21 did not respond here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please cross-check visibility of WP:DRN

Hello admins,

I am not sure if this is the right place, if not shift to right place.

I doubt Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page is in some technical problem. Probably except for one all other ongoing list is being shown as closed or they are really closed? Bookku (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh... what? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

:: WP:DRN looks okay to me...? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There definitely was an issue as far as I could see, now fixed. there was a missing {{DRN archive bottom}} on the top entry in this revision which, at least for me, was collapsing the entirety of the page, not just that discussion. It surprises me that it apparently was displaying okay for others! ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignore my comment, I must have been looking at a cached version! -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mazca, to me it looks okay now. Bookku (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Please could someone take a look at Gadelhak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohamed Gad-el-Hak. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia and only here to promote themselves. Their resume references the Wikipedia article. I couldn't do a copyvio check on it for some reason, but glancing at it some sections look similar. No attempt made to declare a COI, and seems to have ignored notices on their talk page over several years. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here, just wanted to point out that Kmmossi (talk · contribs) may be a sock of Gadelhak (talk · contribs). Also, a cursory look at the contributions and talk page for this user shows a pretty blatant COI and self-promotion issue. Topic ban, perhaps? MrAureliusR_Talk! 20:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Very obvious case. I have blocked Gadelhak indefinitely from editing the page Mohamed Gad-el-Hak. I'll take a look at the potential sock. Bishonen | tålk 17:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

So I've looked... Kmmossi does look a lot like a sock- or meatpuppet. But they've only made one edit, and been warned for it, so we might as well let them marinate a little further, now that Gadelhak is blocked. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

Roy C

Could an admin with experience of legal issues take a look at this edit, which concerns a dispute between the recently deceased article subject and one Aaron Fuchs. I've moved, from the article to the talk page, the paragraph that was added into the article by the IP. Does anything need to be done in relation to the offending, but seemingly sourced, paragraph? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also worth a WP:DOLT look, if it is a BLP issue only coming from an interview Nosebagbear (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Umm..help?

Several users have been attempting to whitewash Paul Rico, and I just got an email from one of them labelled "CONFIDENTIAL" and threatening "action through appropriate channels". Pretty sure that means they want to sue me, like there's any grounds to. Little help here? I'm afraid to even notify them about this discussion, as, groundless or not, I can't afford rent, let alone a lawyer. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sumanuil, legal threats are grounds for blocking until the threat is retracted (per WP:LEGAL) although it's a little unclear from your description what the nature of the threat is. Regardless, intimidating you over email is not ok. If you don't feel comfortable listing additional details here you can follow up in an email, although I personally will be calling it a night soon and may not be able to follow up in a timely fashion, so if another admin can chime in here they may be a better person to follow up with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

By "follow up in an email", do you mean legal@wikimedia.org? - Sumanuil (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sumanuil, my first thought was for you to email an admin, but contacting legal@wikimedia.org is a good idea if the threats are not clearly attached to specific editors or if you're genuinely worried for your safety. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worried about my physical safety. A frivolous lawsuit is more of a psychological worry. I'll email legal if I have to, but if an admin could contact me in private to discuss this, I would appreciate it. - Sumanuil (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess you know to never reply to an email like that. The internet is littered with trolls and POV-pushers and it is very unlikely that the email you describe will result in anything. I wouldn't bother emailing legal (not until someone sends a plausible legal letter signed with the name and address of a lawyer findable in Google). Again, do not reply because any reply gives the troll your email address and allows them to harass you forever. You can forward a harassing email to an admin or the Arbitration Committee (see User:Arbitration Committee). Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Sumanuil:, just checking that you've followed this up, either by emailing an admin or Arbcom (the two more logical routes, as I don't think WMF legal is the right choice here). If you wish, please feel free to email me, as I should have a fairly quick response time for some time. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Sumanuil: Seconding my help as well if you need it still. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:: Should I just forward it to you or @RickinBaltimore:, then? - Sumanuil (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: yep, that's the best way to go Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: please do, we can both look at it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editior

So this user name 76.66.141.232 has putting up random things for no reason such as random people on a movie page and putting up a random movie he or she didn't appear in. He's been doing for it non-stop. He's on Level 3 right now. So please I need you to block user 76.66.141.232 or else he or she might do it again. And also I don't even know how to block people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.31.94 (talk) 02:11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! A couple of things: First of all, don't worry that you don't know how to block other users. This is a function that only administrators can perform. :-) Second, I note that this user has only been warned twice for their edits. This doesn't amount to me as sufficient in most cases where applying a block is justified. Third, I spot-checked their latest contributions, and while the edits are unreferenced, I don't see any obvious red flags. What "random things" are you referring to exactly? Can you provide any diff links with explanations so that we know what you're referring to specifically? On top of this, the IP user hasn't edited in about 24 hours. Blocking the user would be inappropriate in this case and as of the time of this writing, unless a pattern of high amounts of vandalism or abuse, or that are highly severe can be pointed out. If you could provide some additional information, it would be helpful. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I checked the last few edits that user made and it's true, that user made at least two edits that make no sense. I checked IMDB as well (full cast & crew) and saw no mention of these names that were inserted in the articles. [218] [219] Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op - Ah, then we need to revert those edits and warn the user. If they're adding illegitimate content, then I agree that this is a problem. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I just made a small excursion to the thread above the one I posted; thought I'd help out. But I have other to-do lists to take care of. I have no time to check every single edit the user did. And if the user is disruptive, there may be no point in reverting all their edits until they're blocked. Then you have a finite list to "fix", rather than chasing a forever lengthening list. Normal Op (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I just went through all the contributions, since 27 August (They were barely even trying with "Dark Night"[220]-just using the same names) every single one is pretty blatantly improbable even before comparing them with IMDB,...random "MIT students" in an apparently imaginary castlist for a fantasy series [221]; again, same actors, using variations on their real life names. Trent Reznor composes for a medical documentary,[222] and again, some of those same actors appear as "presenters". They have all been reverted, but it does seem a big waste of time for everyone. Curdle (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just a point to ponder for the OP. You reported "unsourced vandalism". How does one go about sourcing vandalism? Just curious. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So User 76.66.141.232 is still putting up random people thats makes no sense again. He still hasn't stopped it yet. Please block him or else he will keep doing it. Here's a list of it that he vandalized. [223]

Disruptive editor, who's wiping pages and doing undiscussed page moves

Over the past few months, user ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs) has single-handedly wiped music genres articles and replaced them with redirects without any discussions. He's incorrectly calling fine sources an unreliable (including some printed books, see #9), while often not offering sources for his edits, and not providing any significant reasons for such movings and merges as well.

Deleted articles with fine sources:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_beat&type=revision&diff=971611716&oldid=971573515&diffmode=source

1+) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_beat&type=revision&diff=973084994&oldid=971659757&diffmode=source

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Livetronica&type=revision&diff=971616063&oldid=926011657&diffmode=source

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_electronica&type=revision&diff=971616651&oldid=916011526&diffmode=source

3+) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_electronica&type=revision&diff=976626063&oldid=971656955&diffmode=source

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Jersey_house&type=revision&diff=973091287&oldid=970747861&diffmode=source

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown-eyed_soul&type=revision&diff=978647124&oldid=978635585&diffmode=source

6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue-eyed_soul&type=revision&diff=978646834&oldid=978638738&diffmode=source

7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychedelic_funk&type=revision&diff=978663058&oldid=965988184&diffmode=source

Articles with poor sources:

8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italo_dance&type=revision&diff=973113123&oldid=961819495&diffmode=source

9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dubtronica&type=revision&diff=971615554&oldid=862197374&diffmode=source

Broke page history, while trying to move it: 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folktronica&type=revision&diff=976626086&oldid=976150903&diffmode=source

Copied huge parts from existing article into the other article: 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronica&type=revision&diff=971630048&oldid=970506142&diffmode=source

Most of such pages were repeatedly restored both by me and by other users. He ignores requests for making discussion for such moves\merges, both in the comments on the reverts and asks on his personal Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidest (talk • contribs)

It doesn't look like you've tried giving him feedback on his talk page. It's good to try that before seeking admin intervention. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to talk with him via revert comments (August 15 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_beat&action=history), but just faced threats of being reported. While other users left messages regarding "cut-and-paste moves" on his talk page. The one from September 4 he seems to have ignored, because he was doing the same after week after and got the same message on September 16. Therefore, as I understand it, he doesn't seem to be friendly enough to perceive and react to feedback. Solidest (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Still, you need to try, before expecting admin intervention. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote to him today listing all the things. Solidest (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

MewMeowth's "gestapo" remarks and other abusive/harassing comments

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

Can appropriate administrative action be taken re this user for recent flagrant violations of the civility, no personal attacks, and harassment policies?

After making a menacing post on my user talk page with the title "Gestapo," various battleground manifesto-type statements, and sarcastic lines like "big hugs" (diff), I asked this user to observe our civility policies. Directly after, MewMeowth made a second user talk page post with this line: "It implies you're using scare tactics resembling those of the Gestapo in WW2. I hope this clears up any confusion. Big hugs."

I think I've developed a fairly thick skin on this project, but this kind of personally abusive, unprovoked remark is not acceptable, and drives off editors. I would like MewMeowth to (1) clearly acknowledge that his/her behavior violates our civility/personal attacks/harassment policy; and (2) commit to not engaging in this behavior again. If he/she is unwilling to do so, then I would request prompt admin action to enforce our policies.

(Side note: A look at this user's history reveals that this kind of thing is not necessarily an isolated incident. Edit-warring on various Argentina-related articles, battleground behavior in edit summaries, and Random removal of scholarly articles are all motifs here.)

--Neutrality^talk 23:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Won't do. If anything, the user who is engaging in abusive behaviour is you, and as administrator you should know better. You left a notice stating I have shown interest in pseudo-science, which is absolutely not true. It could be argued you were using this notice as a scare tactic as retaliation for your edit war on McEnany's article. I will absolutely not back down from my recent edits while acknowledging that like any other editor my edits are not perfect and I'm editing to the best of my abilities and knowledge of Wikipedia policies. My comment on your talk page was an exercise in civility, something which you clearly have not shown so far. Implying that my edits are vandalic, that is outrageous. And harassing is exactly what you're doing going through my edit history and nitpicking edits that are absolutely unrelated to your original claim. Are you implying my account is an SPA just because I have an interest in certain topics (clearly outlined on my user page)? Laughable. Your case is so weak that you went as far as complaining about the term 'big hugs.' I don't see the issue in sending virtual hugs to other editors. Could it be that you're grasping at straws here? Big hugs, MewMeowth (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Given MewMeowth's stated view that likening of another user to "the gestapo" (twice) is "an exercise in civility" (?!), and his statement that "I will absolutely not back down," I ask for significant sanctions. A total unwillingness (or inability) to identify or retract a flagrantly inappropriate remark, combined with this battlesground attitude, is incompatible with participation in a collaborative project. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for 72 hours for this reprehensible harassment, and am open to a discussion of additional sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a temporary block administrative action has already been taken. I'm not completely third party as this user has recently made changes to the material I wrote on the Kayleigh McEnany article, which seems to be from which this whole incident arose. As another administrator, I concur that this editor's behavior has much room for improvement. Besides the talk page abuse and acerbic edit messages, their editing style itself seems worrisome and in the Kayleigh McEnany case alone I notice problems related to giving WP:FALSEBALANCE and appeals to policy to justify removal as if it's a cut-n-dry application of the policy even when it's not. Editor is clearly passionate and has a wide-range of interests so hopefully they the block gives them time to reflect rather than get angry. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Long-term persistent disruptive tendentious 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.

---

Serial Number 54129 has been persistently, tendentiously, disruptively WP:STONEWALLing his preferred version of the article List of My Hero Academia characters starting in January and became at least once a month since May. After his most recent disruptive editing, an RFC started, and while I would not call it a consensus quite yet, is currently pointing to the content being acceptable, isn’t getting the hint that at least 4 other users on the talk page (lullabying, North8000, David Tornheim, and Tutelary), 2 who have reverted the mass removals (me and Exukvera) and at least 3 IPs think that the succinct descriptions are acceptable and that the series itself is a good primary source (and thus verifies the content, contrary to Serial Number’s claim of it breakinrg WP:V), and in the past has accused those he disagrees with of bad faith. Under a suggestion from Robert McClenon in August, and another one from David Tornheim in September, I believe that Serial Number 54139’s edits and refusal to properly discuss are disruptive enough for ANI, and I listed out and acknowledge my own faults in the past below. I was going to wait until after there was disruptive editing without discussion during the RFC instead of before, as well as due to advice for me to slow down due to my previous BATTLEGROUND attitude. However, since I feel like Serial Number has gotten away with uncivil behavior, stonewalling, breaking BRD while claiming to be above it, and dishonestly misciting policies and other peoples’ statements to make himself appear right, I feel like this behavior is completely unacceptable and needs some form of disciplinary action as soon as possible, or else the disruptive editing might continue and I’ll be forced to edit war to combat it. Prior to the RFC, me and DESiegel discussed that the descriptions can be implicitly sourced to the material itself without being referenced, and Serial Number still reverted, with another edit summary claiming that I was “bulshitting innocent admins”, which I believe breaks WP:AGF. After a lengthy discussion in January, and leaving the page alone for 4 months, he started disruptively editing again in May, and almost every month since. Knowing Serial Number 54129, he would likely going to try and boomerang this if he was active while denying that the behavior I will be linking below is either disruptive or uncivil, and make the exact same repeated arguments without any examples that basic character descriptions are original research and that I’m clearly in the wrong. I obviously don’t want this to boomerang, but I do acknowledge that I screwed up in handling this user in the past, but unlike me, I feel like Serial Number 54129 has come clean about his past incivility, and I also feel like he refuses to acknowledge how disruptive and against what multiple people agree with his edits are. While he has only been doing the same mass removals once or twice a month, the pattern is clearly disruptive and prevents actual progress of the page, and I suspect it only happens once or twice a month so he can evade disciplinary action. Well no more. I believe a topic ban is necessary against Serial Number 54129 for not only to prevent more disruptive editing and to force him to discuss if he wants the page to go back to his version, and also because of previous uncivil behavior about his righteousness.

Since at least January 2020, he has removed entireties of character descriptions such as in this edit in May, and, to give a few more examples, was persistently reverted to the same version in July, in early August, in late August, and again 2 days after that claiming that basic character descriptions break WP:V, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, despite multiple users stating that the content does not break any of those policies and that the manga/anime itself works fine as a primary source, and despite attempts to remove actual cruft/unverifiable content, thus making Serial Number 54129’s edits WP:TENDENTIOUS from what I understand of the word. In fact, it took almost 2 months to notice and remove obvious vandalism to the page because I was so busy dealing with mass removal of basic descriptions, and, according to WP:DISRUPT, Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Also, according to WP:STONEWALL, Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.

He has called me incorrect for disagreeing with his claim that the content breaks policies when other users have backed my claims up that they do not break said policies (seen above) He has refused to take part in any discussion on the content dispute since early August (with said August comment including calling me a derogatory name and stalking my location, which I believe are both breaches of WP:NPA and of my privacy), even resorting to reverting to the same version during a discussion, and has refused to give examples of what he believes breaks those policies. For reference, another mass removal done by Drmies adequately explained what was considered interpretive, and those interpretive statements and other cruft have since been removed. While I do not agree with Drmies reverting to Serial Number 54129’s extremely flawed version at all, he at least gave an example of what specifically sounded interpretive (key word sounded, as everything on the page is directly taken from the series, but I agree that some statements were unable to sound like it was directly sourced from the material), allowing for me to do a constructive removal of actual cruft and original research (and not Serial Number 54129’s extremely broad definition) without removing character descriptions as well. Serial Number 54129, on the other hand, has repeatedly refused to give specific examples of what is unacceptable, even when asked this what he thought was specifically unacceptable, making his repeated argumentative behavior go into WP:WABBITSEASON territory.

He has called me a “crufter” while stalking my IP location and taking an uncivil tone of voice when I specifically made it clear that I was against whatever fancruft was present at the time (which I believe is a breach of WP:NPA, and also shows that he likely did not read my statement at all), and has implied that I am not worth listening to. About stalking my IP location, I know this isn’t necessarily the board for breaches of privacy, but I want to keep everything in this one report, and I understand that my IP address was publicly visible, but I still feel uncomfortable about him stalking my location. I had attempted to explain that there was a difference between too much detail, no detail at all, and just in between, and the only thing he said that wasn’t a repeated argument was a personal attack in the form of a derogatory name that I specifically explained before he called me a “crufter” that I wasn’t what that. In the statement of me being a “crufter”, he claimed that I complained about him to ANI in May, which is only partially true; I asked about what to do about this situation on the Teahouse, not expecting any action at the time, and then Serial Number moved that discussion over to ANI. When requesting for the page to be protected despite the content dispute being in good faith, He claims that only one user has been undoing his edits and in the face of WP:OWN. Both claims are false. Nobody has claimed to own the article, and several other edits by other users that are not me have readded the info back in. In fact, after looking through what links to this page, I found out that another IP opposed the mass removal of content when it was done unexplained in early August (when the page was semi-protected for “one IP re-adding the info back in”), so if Serial Number 54129 brings up any argument that I’m the only one who opposes his edits to this page, that argument is clearly false. In my opinion, Serial Number needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK, as he is still disruptively editing against the wishes of at least 5 people, and has not gotten the point that his monthly bold edits to this page are unwanted.

He also twisted parts of neutral statements that supported his side and leaving out parts that supported my side for his own agenda to use against me, twisted mistakes in my writing to use for his own agenda, claimed that claims of him “ghosting” were false when he clearly hasn’t given actual input on the article talk page since January (unless there’s something about the word “ghosting” that I don’t understand), accused me of “bulshitting innocent admins” from an agreement pre-RFC that the series itself works as an unreferenced primary source, reverted the content again claiming that his edits go above BRD despite a new discussion in the same section still going on at the time, with his edits claiming that the content does not follow WP:V despite the discussion on the talk page saying otherwise, and warned another user of “unconstructive editing on his talk page” when we were both warned by another user for edit warring. He did eventually remove his “warning” to Geraldo Waldo Luis, but I am still concerned on how he perceived a warning from an unrelated user about 3RR as unconstructive, or even if he assumed that I gave him the warning.

To be clear, I know that nobody’s edits have broken 3RR, as the reversions have been spread out to be roughly each month, but Serial Number 54129’s edits are clearly disruptive, and I think a topic ban for him may unfortunately be necessary to prevent more disruptive editing, or at the very least force him to discuss what he specifically believes is unacceptable instead of disruptively pushing his version. In fact, I’m almost suspicious that he’s only doing this once a month specifically to avoid breaking 3RR, despite clearly reverting to the exact same version in each of his edits to the page. What I’m seeing is a user who would rather lie, twist neutral statements in his favor, accuse others of bad faith and unconstructive editing, disruptively edit in a manner that would avoid breaking 3RR but still clearly show the same pattern, call those he disagrees with derogatory names, stonewall, stalk locations, insist on his righteousness, and claim disagreement is incorrect when multiple users back the disagreement, than discuss on the article talk page, act civilly, drop the stick, give specific examples of what he believes breaks policies, or listen to other users’ input, in order to get his preferred version of a page. While it is clear that his intentions are not malicious, as breaking certain policies is a legitimate concern, his methods clearly disrupt an otherwise stable version of the page from detecting vandalism, he is willing to accuse me of WP:IDHT when he himself is not listening to me or anybody else either, and has repeated the same arguments of the content breaking WP:OR or WP:V with no elaboration or specific examples of why he thinks it breaks those policies (WP:WABBITSEASON), despite dissent from multiple users (WP:STONEWALL and WP:DROPTHESTICK), and in a way that halts regular progress of the page (WP:DISRUPT).

I also want to make it clear that in the past, I have not been perfect in handling this situation; in August, I prematurely reported this to Arbcom, and have also been guilty of making a DRN thread more about the opposing user than the content and interpreting neutral statements for my agenda to use against him (which Serial Number 54129 did point out, but noticeably did not mention that he also misrepresented neutral statements for his own agenda), well as falsely accusing him of trolling and edit warring. In e DRN thread, I pinged him at least 5 times, and Serial Number 54129 threatened to report me here for harassment, which, looking back, is a valid reason, and I probably should not have pinged him so many times. I have taken a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that has been rightfully called out by other users, and in the Teahouse thread that Serial Number 54129 turned into an ANI one in May, I called his edits vandalism, when in hindsight, they aren’t. In the past, I had trouble distinguishing between the terms “vandalism”, “edit warring”, and “disruptive editing”, and now I know that Serial Number 54129’s edits are clearly disruptive, but not either edit warring or vandalism, as edit warring has to be done within 24 hour periods of one another, and vandalism is strictly defined as purely bad faith. I was provoked by his disruptive editing and uncivil accusatory comments, which led me to prematurely report him to multiple other threads in August, and that may have further provoked him to keep disruptively editing. I fully regret stooping to Serial Number 54129’s level of disruption during that time. Rather than going to the Teahouse or DRN or Arbcom, which are all the wrong places for his situation, I should have come straight to here, and reported this situation here myself instead of Serial Number reporting himself only to deny it 2 months afterwards.

I understand that Serial Number 54129’s accusations of bad faith, uncivil behavior, stalking my IP location, calling me derogatory names, as well as my mistakes in Arbcom and DRN, all happened well into the past. However, unlike myself, I do not feel as if Serial Number 54129 has admitted to his uncivil behavior, I am worried that his concerning behavior will happen again, and I still think the level of disruption, stonewalling, and insistence to push his version without discussion are definitely not acceptable no matter what the circumstance is. To quote Eggishorn’s advice on my talk page, When your edits are questioned, it is much more productive to try to address the concerns addressed by other editors and not to try to enforce your version, and Serial Number 54129 has repeatedly enforced his version of the article without addressing concerns from other users that his claims that the content breaks Wikipedia policies are false. This content dispute is already being discussed on the article talk page, but Serial Number 54129 has repeatedly ignored the talk page and keeps reverting to his version despite disagreement from multiple users and a discussion he has repeatedly refused to contribute to, and in the past has taken a very uncivil and IDHT attitude about his righteousness, which is why I think a topic ban is unfortunately needed against him. If not a topic ban, then possibly a two-way interaction ban for both of us, due to our previous uncivil behavior towards each other. I would like to mention that I have already muted all notifications from him due to his uncivil, disruptive, persistent, stonewalling, dishonest, accusatory, stalker-type, etc. attitude, but I do have the page he is disruptively editing without discussion in my watchlist in case this happens again.

I have not given him an official warning, because I know he is going to consider my edits unconstructive and claim that there is nothing wrong with his. give him feedback in January before I made an account telling him that his edits to the page were wrong, after his first mass removal, and I feel as if that provoked him to keep reverting to the same versions 8 months later. In fact, he closed the discussion on his talk page when I kept asking him about the removal of several main characters on the list, showing a clear lack of desire to discuss, as well as demanding that I thank him for edits that I clearly disagree with. After he made that comment, he reverted to the same version simply saying “no thanks, see discussion on my talk”], and has repeatedly described the content as fanfiction, original research, and synthesis, despite multiple explanations that the content he is removing fits into none of those categories, and kept doing it even after having it explained. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No ones reading that, please edit it down or provide a tl;dr. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 04:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, serial hasn't edited in a few weeks anyhow. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 04:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

tl;dr: Serial Number 54129 had been disruptively removing character descriptions from List of My Hero Academia characters almost once a month since May despite a lengthy discussion of January and discussions with other users, refuses to discuss, assumes bad faith from me and that I’m not worth listening to, and at points demanded to be thanked for edits I clearly disagree with, claimed that his edits were above BRD, called me a crufter despite me making i clear I was against what little cruft was in the article at the time, and stalked my IP address location. In his mass removals, he has refused to explain what exactly was considered original research, even when asked. For comparison, another editor who did a similar mass removal did give examples of original research, allowing for constructive removal of it. There’s more, but I feel like it’s much more clear if you read the multi-paragraph top comment. I have had a lot of problems with this editor’s behavior, and I don’t think this tl;dr adequately explains my problems. I know serial hasn’t edit in a few weeks, but I’m worried that once he comes back, he’ll be back to the same disruptive editing. He took a break in August, after I restored the content, and one of his first edits back was reverting my edit. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unnamed anon, we are not giving out any awards for longest and most impenetrable ANI posts. Quite the contrary. Summarize the dispute in 100 words or less. Be concise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 18 September 2020 (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.

• Upon further consideration: I am very concerned about Unnamed anon's editing here and think that their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality needs some admin attention. As Unnamed mentions in their wall of text above, I have previously tried to counsel Unnamed at their talk page after a string of incidents that included complaints about SN54129 at venues from the Teahouse to AE. The WP:FORUMSHOPPING and urgency of their complaints over a garden-variety content dispute on a list of fictional characters clearly required some intervention. I hoped some informal counseling would be helpful in disentangling the situation. I had thought that Unnamed had reached a realization about this 3 weeks ago: I agree with your statement that me and Serial have both been too defensive about our side of the argument, been too ready to assume bad faith, and that we focused more on the editors’ actions rather than the content.

WP:NOTTHEM aside, it was a way forward but rather than move on they have recently returned to this dispute despite the absence of SN54129. They went back and retroactively removed SN's comments on their talk page calling it "hypocrisy". They did the same on Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters calling it a "personal attack and breach of privacy". Now this here, when under Unnamed's own chronology there has been no incident with SN54129 for weeks. The above "no action" closure is certainly correct as there is obviously no "urgent incident" in SN's editing but Unnamed has instead themself provided all the evidence needed of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Every venue that they have complained about SN in (and there have been many) has failed to sustain Unnamed's complaints. There is no rational justification to this complaint and the return to a non-issue after three weeks of quietude is highly concerning. They need at least a formal admin warning about expired equines and blunt objects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I’m open to criticism, as long as it’s constructive like yours and not hypocritical like Serial’s. In the wall of text, I did mention that I have had faults in my BATTLEGROUND attitude and have misinterpreted others’ viewpoints. I’m not denying that I’ve been faultless. I know that this has not been an issue for quite some time, but I am still concerned about many of Serial's disruptive behavior continuing. One of his first edits back after a break in August was reverting to the exact same version, claiming that I was “bulshitting innocent admins” because of an agreement with DESiegel that the material works as an unreferenced source. Time and time again, he has refused to give reasons for why he believes the content is unverifiable, despite multiple other users stating otherwise, and unlike how Drmies did when he did the same edits. Not only that, but calling me a derogatory name is certainly a personal attack, stalking an IP location unwanted, misciting clearly neutral statements for his own gain, believing that he is above BRD, telling me that I am “bulshitting innocent admins”, demanding I thank him for edits I clearly disagree with, and not seeing his own IDHT are all extremely concerning. I’m actually trying to maintain the page to have descriptions, but not have cruft, and he goes ahead and calls me a crufter and stalks my IP address instead of giving a non-repeated argument. None of his actions are okay by any means, regardless of the content, which is why I requested action against him. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I may have been hasty or overly generous in closing the thread, depending on how one looks at it. The history and talk page of List of My Hero Academia characters could certainly give flight to a boomerang. No objection from me if someone wants to undo/redo my close. Lev!vich 19:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Actually, closing the thread was the right thing to do. I should have waited for more disruptive editing, as I likely just provoked Serial to disruptively edit again. Looking back, removing Serial’s comment to my talk page was a little too harsh, but I stand by my removal of his comment on Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters. Not including the personal attack that I already mentioned, I feel very uncomfortable with Serial Number looking up where I live, and I consider that to be a serious breach of privacy. As for my edits the page itself, the only recent ones have been trying to strike a balance between the previous version and Serial's version in order to establish a status quo of having character descriptions, but not bloated ones. My BATTLEGROUND approach was because of DRN, not the page with the dispute. If this boomerangs into a warning towards me for assuming bad faith (and as long as no other disciplinary action against me is taken), that's fine. I just wanted to correct your venue of where my disruptive behavior is coming from. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That article is a trivia magnet, and Serial Number 54129 is My Hero for helping to keep it in check. These editors need to express themselves on Wikia, while we try to write an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I agree that the article is a trivia magnet; which is why I’ve removed most of the trivia similar to the example you gave in your removal of content. It’s not an encyclopedia if it is just a simple list of roles and voice actors. Please stop telling me to go to Wikia; that has too much info for my liking. There’s a balance between no info and too much info. Either way, that still doesn’t excuse the assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, stalking of IP locations, refusal to abide by BRD (even claiming to be above it), and general incivility Unnamed anon (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You reinstated 27k of fluff. Yes, there is a balance between no info and too much info, and here we are talking about a huge-ass list of characters from a comic and TV show--with no sourcing except, essentially, from ANN and a press release from Funimation. If I were writing that up in an encyclopedia I'd be ashamed of myself. No secondary sourcing, no relevance, and for all your pointing to WP:PLOT--well, this isn't even plot, and so that's just an excuse to insert primary material. I know you're not the worst of em (the worst, recently, is probably User:Exukvera), but you're not really helping--and now you come here with a wall of text casting aspersions on Serial#. You misunderstand what an encyclopedia is: it is a collection of articles on topics where information is verified by secondary sources. No secondary sources, no encyclopedic importance. It's really that simple. And if you hadn't reverted Serial# you'd have saved yourself a whole bunch of trouble, and this version is no better than this one. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: If you look into my most recent edits to the page, I did in fact add several secondary sources, and removed several non-notable characters to make the article less “fluffy”. Also, thank you for saying I’m not he worst of them. That actually matters a lot, as long as if you or Serial do choose to remove the content, you (plural you) either attempt to contribute to the discussion and don't ignore actual attempts to add secondary sources and remove cruft. From what I can tell, articles and reviews talking about an episode/chapter are fine secondary sources, based on the few descriptions not removed. And while yes, the content technically isn't plot, the characters' superpowers are their most notable attribute in many cases despite said characters being ever present in the series’ marketing, and my pointing to MOS:PLOT is because it is the policy that explains that the comic and tv show are both considered unreferenced primary sources. Additionally my wall of text wasn't necessarily about the content, but Serial not abiding by basic BRD standards, and claiming to be above them while casting aspersions at me. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon:, I'm encouraged that you are obviously reflecting on your editing and learning from this experience. That said, if you continue to focus on SN54129 and what you feel they did, this incident will continue to be a net negative to your editing experience here and to the encyclopedia in general. To quote a fictional character from another franchise: "Let it go." I'm not trying to tell you not to feel upset by those interactions because they're your feelings, after all. I'm just advising you to draw a line under this incident and move on. Even if, at some later date, you and SN54129 come into further conflict, forget about what has happened until today and focus on what you can do going forward. There really is nothing else to be done by anyone else at this point. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Dwccb10: serious CIR issues

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

---

Dwccb10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user seems to have serious WP:CIR issues. In particular, they have three times created List of Subnational Country Alliances which was three times speedy deleted. Their user talk page is full of warnings, which include warnings for removal content from pages and for restoring BLP violations. After I have warned the user, they developed an unfortunate habit of refactoring comments of other users at their talk page (so that what it is there now does not have a section header which I have given to it - even though it was a standartised one, but the text is still signed by me). The first time I noticed it it was too late to revert (intermediate changes); the next one [224] I reverted and warmed the user again; after the third one [225]I blocked and tried to explain them as simply as I could why this is not appropriate. Today, they reverted again [226] with the edit summary "do not undo". In principle, I can block them indef per WP:CIR, since I do not believe they have any useful contribution, but technically speaking they are edit-warring with myself at their user page, and I would like to ask another administrator to have a look. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment; indefinitely blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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.

---

Osama siraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is posting legal threats. The threat is in better grammar at his user talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not much of a one for blocking for legal threats, but these really are legal threats ("tommorow I go to the court filed the case"). Blocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:37, 19 September 2020 (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.

Abuse of admin rights by Drmies

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2001:1BB0:E000:1E:0:0:0:3F6

@Drmies: left an insensitive response to an IP user threatening to take their life. Rather than appropriately pointing them to helpline prevention resources, Mies just said "do us all a favor" in his deletion summary for the page, implying that he doesn't care about the suicidal thoughts of people. Wow that's some callousness right there. And to think this guy is an admin? Wow! I can't believe someone in a position of authority would say something like that. Please discuss the insensitivity of this admin here. He needs to be taught a lesson about empathy towards others in suicidal crises and realize it's very bad to say something like that no matter what grudge you hold against them. HotDogPruning (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You failed to notify Drmies, as you are required to do so. I've now done so for you. Also, as a non-admin, you can't see what was there that got deleted, so you can't know whether there was actually a suicide threat, unless of course it was placed by you, logged out. WP:BOOMERANG? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

...do us all a favour and don't try to stir up random drama about an admin dealing succinctly with a long term troll? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, this is WhenDatHotlineBlings. One of the user names established from this IP points out I have a rectangular pool in my backyard--I'd just say out that that is not an unusual shape for a pool. They like to make suicide threats, and post and email vile sexual material involving my children. When I said "do us all a favor" I was hesitant to fully express myself--I meant to say "do us all a favor and fuck off". When you see this, revert, block, ignore, and prevent email and talk page access. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2020 (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:ฮอร่าน : Stalking

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

---

ฮอร่าน (talk · contribs) stalked me on my talk page [227]. The user also clearly stated on his or her user page as "mocked from Horus's name." I ask for a block of the user as long as administrators see fit. Regards, --Horus (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This was a no-brainer. Indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2020 (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.

tpa removal

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.

---

31.208.66.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Evidently trying to loose tpa (1 2. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried telling them they weren't allowed to remove declined block templates, and got some nice abuse in return. TPA revoked. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 20 September 2020 (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.

Difficult edits at Democratic Union Party (Syria)

At Democratic Union Party (Syria) there are two editors who defend the inclusion of several sources that are not on topic and also try to conceal the source Harun Yahya (pen name of Adnan Oktar) as a source for the page, who is a well known Turkish conspiracy theorist. They claim that I remove the PKK PYD relation by my edit, which I don't.

The involved editors in question are

1: Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم

2: Thepharoah17

3: Paradise Chronicle

The only admin mentioned in the dispute.

El C

They claim an Admin was involved in the wording of the relation between the PKK and the PYD and therefore they revert me. I split the phrase in two, as the PKK-KCK-PYD relation is mainly important to Turkey. The rest of the globe puts more emphasis on the fact that on the achievements of the PYD after the defeat of ISIL. I don't remove the PKK-KCK-PYD relation, I just move the parts to the relevant places and update and clarify the sources.

Most of the 9 sources don't even mention the KCK, so they force their inclusion by edit war and are claiming Admin support. They say I remove the relation between the PYD and the PKK, which I actually don't. I just spilt and move the phrase according to their relevance and the relevance of the sources. According to the talk page Ibn Amr also agrees on the KCK part, but only on the talk page, his edits are an edit war. It is hard for me to believe that an Admin agreed to the use and concealment of Harun Yahya as a source (I am pretty sure they didn't, they weren't involved anymore, as I pointed out who Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is) and the use of other sources that don't even mention the KCK for a phrase that focuses on the KCK. This is a minor dispute within a larger dispute in which an Admin (El C) has encouraged us to come to the ANI. I try to make the Admin work less. So here I am with a minor one, the other larger one is prepared at the sand box, but I give it an other try.

Here is my first improvement of the page from the 1 September 2020 (onwards I only mention the month, the edits are all in 2020)

diff In which I removed some of the sources which didn't mention the KCK and split and moved the phrase in two. I also clarified the sources like adding the author/publisher of an article to the source. The edit was reverted on the 1 September by Ibn Amr with the edit summary "he sentence you removed is very well sourced (10 or more) and took us (...) weeks to reach consensus on it. See Talk page, use it and seek consensus BEFORE removing this sentence"

diff

I then used the Talk page repeatedly on the 2 and 3 September,

diff

diff

diff

but there where no answers about Harun Yahya by anyone. ThePharoah17 and today also Ibn Amr re-included Harun Yahya and the sources not mentioning the KCK after having claimed Admin support for the current version. The Harun Yahya source is difficult to find as at first sight, he appears as Bill Rehkopf. In my opinion Harun Yahya is not a good source for a controversial phrase which I also stated at the talk page. Also sources that do not mention the KCK should be used to source a phrase about the KCK. El C also mentioned multiple high quality sources should be used. Here the diff

Both, the KCK part of the phrase as well as the PYD-PKK connection would still be sourced with 3 sources. But as there is no founder of the PYD mentioned by name in any source but it is claimed that it was the PKK who founded it, as to me it is better to move this to the history part instead of the lead. For the KCK part I had the permission by Ibn Amr, they just don't live up to it in their edits. And a source with no name of a founder is no high quality source. (Turkish sources would very probably deliver the names of the PKK-members amongst the PYD founders, but they don't and it would also not be a quality source) Nor is Harun Yahya. And after my edit I did on the 16 September

here the diff,

the sources would have been clarified and not just a link as it is currently sometimes the case. The others prefer the current version with the unrelated sources.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You're in the wrong forum - this a content issue. See WP:DR, and if it's a RS issue, see WP:RSN ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave

All Burma Shave notices should be signed. We will need to properly credit them in the upcoming, best-seller compilation, "A Close Shave: BS on WP". :-) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Think of it as anonymous graffiti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Burma Boys (talk • contribs)

Infringement of caution against attacks and of topic-ban by XIIIfromTokyo

Reports and answers

Accusation of "xenophobic behaviour"

If understand well the story, XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing another user of anti-Semitism and homophobia and made legal threat against him and, as a consequence, has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants" by Wikipedia English administrators. He had only one edit in 2020 on Wikipedia English but is now telling me "happy ?", that I "try to start a discussion" that it is not "very mature" and that administrators on Wikipedia English have a "xenophobic behaviour" because he received remarks from them about his level of English (but he wrote in the same edit "I openned").

Context: there is a Sockpuppet investigation created by a one-purpose account on me (because I did not remove sources in an article, I would be the same user that put these relevant sources and that has been banned for sockpuppets use). I am not sure why, but XIIIfromTOKYO is using the comment section to give me links about a user on Wikipedia French with whom he had a content dispute and talking about his thousands of edits on Wikipedia French.

--Delfield (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI the whole message is here. Feel free to read it first, and to see if Delfield's presentation is honest or not.

WP:NPA is clear about that : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex (...) ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor [are never acceptable]". Targeting a non-native speaker on his few grammatical errors in order to avoid talking about the main topic, and/or in order to exclude him from the discussions is xenophobic. Period. I didn't claim "that administrators on Wikipedia English have a "xenophobic behaviour"", but, form my experience, some of them clearly need to be educated on that issue. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

Back in 2015 FR.Wiki had to face Droas82, an SPA targeting two rivals colleges in France : Sciences Po, and University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas. The first one was always belittled, and the second one always praised. I noticed the the same person, using a different account, Launebee was now targeting EN.Wiki in the very same way. It was very easy to see that it was the same person : same targets, same way to cherrypick, use unreliable sources and/or misuse sources. On top of that, Droas82 was created at 14:29, 1 December 2015, and Launebee was created at 15:16, 1 December 2015. From the start, that person intended to target both FR.Wiki and EN.Wiki, and to avoid being easily tracked. It shows that this person has a very good knowledge about how wiki works, and how to work around its weaknesses.

So, for 6 months I tried to warn EN.Wiki about these sockpuppets. I was topic baned because of that. In 2018 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee finaly came to the conclusion that, indeed, there was a large mise-use of suckpuppet by Launebee. This user didn't stop after being caught, and these days sockpuppet investigation has been initiated against Delfield. This request at AN is just a counterfire to avoid answering at the sockpuppet investigation.

Feel free to have a deeper look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee and the connected articles : Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas...

I have been an active user for more than 10 years, and as of today have more than 110'000 edits. You have a crosswiki povpushing/sockpuppet issue. The person behind it knows Wiki weaknesses, and how to exploit them. This problem won't go away if you don't look at it. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This answered question is perhaps useful to the discussion on whether Wikipedia administrators have a xenophobic behavior problem when they say XIIIfromTokyo have a language problem. --Delfield (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Aggressivity

XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him".

I opened a Suckpuppets investigation request too.

--Delfield (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: As the quote was mine, I have edited Delfield's previous message and provided the full version of my quote. Delfield cut it in a misleading way, and was originally only "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him".

Delfield attacked me on my editcount, and them on a grammatical mistake. I have remained factual.

Delfield, you are not allowed to change my messages, or to cut them in a way that could alter their meanings. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

XIIIfromTokyo is now, in the same edit, changing the text I wrote and signed and telling me that I should not do this exact thing he just did ("change his messages"). I put my original text back. The edit summary is quite aggressive too in my opinion. --Delfield (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic-ban infringement

XIIIfromTokyo edited an article on a French agency rating French academic institutions. It was part of his feud with the other user he was topic-banned with (we see that in the talk page). --Delfield (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize, the links the administrators would want to look at: [228][[229][[230][[231][[232][233]. --Delfield (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

broken ill

I was visiting the so.wiki main page, and when I tried to get back to the en.wiki main page there was an error. I'm referring to the left column where it has the links for all the other languages. It looks like the English link is the only one broken, but I don't know how (or if) I can fix it. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT. Whilst I'd agree with you that the interface has a chronic, intractable problem, I think it may fail on the 'behavioural' part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it has been fixed now. Not sure by whom, but that's fine. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

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.

---

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

"Plus dont defame wikipedia by providing false content online else stricter legal action might be proceeded. I hope you make suggested changes and remove content that malign the website Op-India." (emphasis added)

Request to retract legal threat: [234]

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Already taken care of - indeffed by Orangemike. MiasmaEternal^TALK 03:42, 21 September 2020 (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.

ScoopOZWDR

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.

---

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

ScoopOZDWR just made a legal threat on the main Administrators' Noticeboard concerning an article that they have a COI in. I removed for now, but the user might need to be directed to the proper method of contacting the WMF. Goose^(Talk!) 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Said legal threat: [235] —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 03:49, 21 September 2020 (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 from IP range

Following on from this discussion a week or so ago, the disruptive editor has returned yet again using multiple IPs in the 2606:A000:4508:A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the range. As has been the case for roughly two months now, this user continues to engage in two types of disruptive editing...adding spurious sister city pairings to various city pages and incorrectly adding or removing listings of networks for various kids shows. The IP range is already blocked from editing Raleigh, North Carolina where some of the disruptive editing occurred, but given that the behavior has encompassed quite a few pages, I'd like to request a broader block. The user has also used 98.122.148.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to make similar edits, although the last such edit was 10 days ago. --WildCowboy (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. The 98.122 IP hasn't edit recently. If it does, I can block it for evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --WildCowboy (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: or any other admin: The 98.122.148.179 IP has been used again to engage in the same disruptive editing on New Bern, North Carolina and Verona. Can we get a block on that one too? Thanks. --WildCowboy (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated! --WildCowboy (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Florida5656 Is SPA for Soumita Saha

All of the actions taken by

• Florida5656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been to promote

• Soumita Saha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was deleted after discussion by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumita Saha. These actions included re-creating the article in article space, where it has been deleted by User:Deb as G4 and salted, and re-creating the article in draft space as Draft:Soumita Saha, where it either has been deleted or is waiting for deletion. The actions also included inserting a Keep in the closed AFD. That was probably a good-faith error, maybe the only good-faith thing done by the account. A block or partial block is in order. If the title has not yet been salted in draft space, that is also in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What do we think about User:Acrobat34, which appears to be another SPA for the same article? Deb (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. When I first made this report, I didn't check Acrobat34's history and so didn't know whether they were an innocent good-faith editor or a meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Only a CU can tell whether they are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, but it doesn't really matter, since they both seem to be not here constructively either way. Blocking both is probably the only way to control the misuse. A partial block will just result in changing the spelling of the title to game the name. Block them both and delete and salt the draft. But thank you for leaving the draft up for temporary view by non-admins so that we could see what is going on. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(nac) There ain't half a lot of struck keep !votes in that AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Going to make a sock report now. Deb (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk has decided there's not enough evidence of socking. So I'll just delete the draft and salt it. Deb (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and fair enough. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vegetassj44

Vegetassj44 has produced multiple stubs[236] of bishops by machine translating (mainly) the lead of the equivalent Polish articles. No attribution is being given. This is giving poor translations such as Krzysztof Antoni Szembek of the Szembek coat of arms. The editor has been advised of the correct way of translating[237] but continues to produce poorly translated, unattributed articles. --John B123 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am doing a better job right now, I am not using translator any more. Vegetassj44 (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Best Known For IP

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 community banned editor has created the account User:Stroven and is insulting User:Quite A Character on User:Drmies's talk page.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's what they do, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2020 (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:Walter Görlitz continually harassing on my talk page

This began with an edit I made at Canada women's national soccer team to correct the name of a transgender athlete in the Current Roster section who wished to be known by the name Quinn rather than by their WP:DEADNAME. I was then reverted. I provided multiple sources as well as the WP:DEADNAME policy to support the change to their correct name rather than the athlete's former name. I was reverted again until the 3 revert rule and we stopped. Prior to this I posted on the user's talk page to not add incorrect information (the former name that the player no longer goes by). The user responded by posting an accusation of vandalism for posting on their talk page and threatening me with a block despite not being an admin. I will admit my initial edit summaries were a bit aggressive, but I recognized this and stopped and began to respond more calmly. The user also requested me to not post on his talk page and removed my comment from their page. I respected this and did not post on their talk page again. However, when I made the same request for them not to post on my talk page either and to drop the subject since we were not going to agree and having already hit the 3 revert rule, the user continued to post on my page at least another 6-8 times. They can remove me from their talk page, but me apparently removing their post from mine constituted vandalism. Furthermore, they basically acknowledged that my initial edit was correct by saying they supported naming the athlete by their new preferred name. However, the user still continued to harass me on my talk page saying I was harming wikipedia by changing the athlete's name to their preferred name rather than using their deadname. Trying to quell the discussion, I added a source from the official Canadian Soccer Association website where they show the player by the monosyllabic name next to the edit on the team page. The user then responded on my talk page (again after I had requested multiple times for them to drop the issue with me and not post on my page a couple times) that I was making a "mockery of wikipedia" for adding this source for the name while they also searched up my IP to find out where I live and mentioned this information on my talk page, which is a clear example of Stalking and an invasion of privacy. While I admit I am not fully innocent due to my initial aggressive comments, their refusal to accept my request to drop the situation and not post on my talk page (when I accepted their request to not do the same) and especially the stalking and invasion of privacy of my location to me seems to be a major concern. I tried to quell the situation by engaging in some discussion on my talk page, despite my multiple requests to end the situation, but it did not work. While I can handle disagreements, the looking up of my location to me is an extreme departure from a normal disagreement. Then I made one final request to stop posting on my page and yet again they posted. To argue that their view is correct they are citing a now deleted webpage from 6 months ago that uses the incorrect name is more correct than a current webpage from the same website that lists the correct name. The user has now made 16 total edits on my talk page in a matter of hours, including 10 posts after I first asked them to stop, not even really arguing the original edit anymore. 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussing is not harassing. I am trying to explain that while the subject now has a dead name, that is not reflected in the source on the article. The archive is not deleted. There's a difference between the subject's current preferred name and the subject's name at the time of the event. I was planning to add a note tomorrow that the subject's preferred name has changed since the event and leaving the recognized name and reference in-place, but I don't want to continue to change the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Please stop vandalizing my page when it is clearly your own vendetta is what the editor thinks constitutes a talk page ban. There was no vandalism on the talk page, and I really and trying to get anon to discuss the issue. Any help would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, could we please close the discussion and move the article at Talk:Rebecca Quinn (soccer)#Requested move 12 September 2020? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say 10 posts on my talk page after I asked you to stop is harassment not discussion. Discussion would have been going to the Canadian women's talk page and pinging me there. Instead, you continually posted on my page when you were asked not to. Comments like "you're making a mockery of wikipedia", I can write on your talk page but you can't write on mine, "you won't be welcome here [wikipedia]", and looking up where I live are not "Discussion" to me. You also said for me to take it here if I had an issue, I eventually had an issue 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that I could have continued the conversation there, as you could have done.

In context, it was your insistence on loose references for the subject's name that I interpret as unwelcome and yes, you're making a mockery of Wikipedia as it's WP:PILLAR is verifiability, and by changing the name just slightly could cause confusion with an editor who wants to find the name, albeit minor confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Loose references? The Canadian Soccer Association official page for the player which lists all of their matches for the team or the other reference that showed her personal Instagram? The wikilink went directly to the player's wiki page. I fail to see how a deleted webpage is more verifiable than any of those, especially when the link was broken until you updated it to add the archive copy. It's not like I was updating a roster from 5 years ago. I was updating the Current roster. The current roster should use the current name. 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The heading on that section does state that it is the current roster, but the copy reads, "The following 22 players were named to the roster for the 2020 Tournoi de France" and there is a reference to the archived version of the roster (which I updated when I saw it was dead). Since the person who was named to the roster in February no longer has the same name today, there are ways to address this, and this is what I was trying to tell you. We could leave it as sourced (which is my preference). We could add a note (which I was planning to do over the next few days). We encounter this frequently: situations where a subject's name changes after an event, and it's quite unusual to change the name, even when the subject prefers it. I have seen that to be the case with album recordings, actors in film and TV shows, and other more rare instances. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There's some problematic behavior here. (1) 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF, a content dispute over a person's name is not vandalism; see WP:VANDNOT. (2) Walter Görlitz, the talk page message at (1), while misguided, was not vandalism (see WP:VANDNOT), and certainly did not warrant a level 4im warning (see Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Multi-level templates for vandalism. (3) Both of you, carrying on a discussion through edit summaries while undoing the other user's talk page message is usually unproductive.[238][239] (4) 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF, giving a warning about edit warring is not vandalism. (5) Walter Görlitz, giving a user a second welcome message, especially when you are involved in a dispute with that user, is usually going to be considered unwelcome. And lastly, there is absolutely no discussion at Talk:Canada women's national soccer team, and I think if the conversation had taken place there, instead of in edit summaries and on your user talk pages, this might have been more productive. Any reflections on any of this? --Bsherr (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As I admitted earlier, I recognize that I am partially to blame as well. The reason I decided to bring this here was when Walter looked up my IP to find where I was posting from. That was where I felt a line had been crossed and went beyond what a normal disagreement would be. 2607:FEA8:85E0:253:5960:D31:F672:ADAF (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The lookup is normal when working with anons. When you edit without an account, there's an edit notice that states that your IP address will be publicly visible if you make edits. I was not trying to out you but simply mix-up from calling you "anon". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous#IP editing. Editing while unregistered is less anonymous than editing from a registered account. Looking up your IP, while not very friendly and not very helpful in resolving a dispute, is not prohibited. --Bsherr (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The second welcome message was not intentional. I was not aware that it was an editor who 1) I had already welcomed and 2) had blanked their own talk page. In retrospect, after the first blanking of the discussion on their talk page, I should have continued on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope. The conversation on the article talk page should have been started after this edit, by either of you, per WP:BRD, and fifteen minutes before any of this back and forth on your user talk pages ever got started. --Bsherr (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been my experience with anons, that article talk page discussions are not sufficiently visible. Had this been a registered editor, I would have done so, especially since there seemed to be support for the preferred name at the subject's article. You'll notice neither anon has engaged in the move discussion on the subject's talk page. With that in mind, once I saw that I was dealing with an engaged editor, I should have moved there, definitely after the blanking because I felt that the editor was here only to be an advocate for the subject, which is laudable, and not here to follow policy or guidelines. Again, any chance we can close the move discussion on the subject's talk page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You might try {{Please see}} in the future. Regarding the move discussion, I see some disagreement over the target, and see the seven-day period has not elapsed, so I don't think a close would be appropriate just yet. --Bsherr (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen {{ping}} but not Please see. I have noted that and will use it going forward. As you can see from the edit summary on my talk page, my preference is to discuss things on article talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My two cents, from this interaction and this interaction WG is pretty agressive on minor points, refuses to yield and drives low grade edit wars. --evrik ^(talk) 03:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Erewhon Robinson

Erewhon Robinson seems to be some kind of bot, adding articles with no content to them. I can't CSD 10 articles/second, need help. Can't report to AIV, not vandalism. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 04:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Draft:Daniel Officer's World is pure vandalism. But I cleaned up everything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: If you look more closely, Draft:Daniel Officer's World is indeed pure vandalism. They intentionally cheat and lie by adding fake URLs to its website, fake IMDb page and of course a fake publisher (PBS Kids). The fact is that Daniel Officer's World is a YouTube channel by Erewhon Robinson. In other words, the article is also pure spam. WP:VANDAL clearly states that cheating and gaming the system is a form of vandalism.—J. M. (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it's mostly a copy-paste of WordWorld but with some phrases changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Racial epithet and persistent (10+ years) vandalism

Hi. Please see this edit summary (warning: racial epithet, the N word). This page (and a few other Star Wars related ones, and my own talk page), for over a decade, have been graced by this drive-by IP-hoppoing jackass (though same IP the last two incidents). The page has wavered in and out of semi-protection. I'm sure there is a super-precise series of noticeboards and proper templates to report racist language, IP vandalism, request semi-protection ... but today, I am just exhausted and don't have the time for it. Please take care of this. --EEMIV (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I revision-deleted the edit, and I am afraid this is pretty much it, blocking does not make sense, blocking range is probably an overkill, and we can not protect the talk page from this infrequent disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't imagine it's hugely useful, but I've blocked 97.113.169.123 for a couple of weeks. The misspelling of Lando Calrissian brought out the beast in me. And it's supposed to be static, after all. Bishonen | tålk 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

This ES (N-word warning!) by 97.113.23.19 and its routine repetition by User:Sinebot could use revdelling. December 2019, but even so. Narky Blert (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

? It looks revdel'd to me. I thought Ymblanter did it a while back — is it still coming up for you? Reload the page, maybe? Bishonen | tålk 17:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

(ec, I was gossipping with my shopper) Also this pair by 97.113.178.168 and Sinebot, same reason. March 2019. Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the Dec 2019 one has now gone - thankfully. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

And this pair (also March 2019). There's nothing else as bad which remains visible all the way back to 2006; only pottymouth stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This straggler (which I'd already posted) still needs attention, and that should be the lot - on this article, anyway. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I apparently miscalculated the versions during the first attempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. --EEMIV (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All done, I think. Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion posted at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_16#The N-word in edit summaries. Narky Blert (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

KathleenKathleen12345

KathleenKathleen12345 (talk · contribs), having just come off a block for edit-warring on New Westminster Police Department, has gone straight back to making the edits that got them blocked to begin with. For what it's worth, there is a consensus the section she's removing should be cut down to some extent, but not outright removed. I also suspect - but can't ask for an SPI as a year has passed - that she's a sockpuppet of NWPD media (talk · contribs), whose raison d'etre was removing that section wholesale. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably one more reversion away from issuing a NOTHERE block. Reviewing their talk page and edits the amount of disruption being caused is phenomenal. I'm in agreement that the controversy section is possibly UNDUE but they clearly have no interest in achieving anything close to consensus. Glen (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week for continuing to edit war. Agree that the user is one more reversion or disruptive edit away from an indef. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: A better solution in this case might be to use a partial block for that page or for the main encyclopedia while allowing access to article-talk and other discussion pages. As it stands, this editor has improved the encyclopedia by bringing an "undue weight" situation to our attention, albeit in a disruptive manner. An established editor has already corrected the "undue weight" issue after a talk-page discussion consensus was that this was the right thing to do. I for one welcome her continued civil input by way of talk-page discussions. In any case, I hope when the current week-long block expires she "plays by the rules" making the entire discussion of "what to do if she doesn't" irrelevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, NWPD media was soft blocked, so even if they are the same person they have not violated WP:ILLEGIT, so a a sock puppetry block wouldn't be appropriate. One thing to note is that there are no time limits at SPI. If you have evidence to suggest that any account (regardless of age, time since last block etc.) has violated the sockpuppetry policy, filing a report at SPI is both appropriate and a good thing. (the one exception is if you suspect an admin. If this is the case, contact privately a checkuser) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It's more because a behavioural connexion can be made here (NWPD's only edits were to copyedit the article and remove the offending section wholesale, the latter of which are the only edits Kathleen has been making to the article; the rest of it appears to be astroturfing/Karening for the section's removal), so an SPI is otherwise superfluous except to look for sleepers (which I don't think there are), and NWPD media was blocked a year ago - well outside the range of CU data, thus making a technical match impossible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 02:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Filing a report may still get the concern of sockpuppetry dealt with quicker, as clear cut cases are generally dealt with quickly from my experience. Per the comment by NJA below they haven't violated WP:ILLEGIT if they are connected. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

After looking at the talk page, I realized that the block message was for a hard block. I double checked if I could read (by checking the block summary again), but I was correct (and can read). It seems like the user is soft blocked in the block entry (account creation is enabled and autoblock is disabled, plus the block summary is for a soft block), but their block talk page message was for a spamublock (so a hard block).

NJA, can you please comment whether you meant to softblock or hardblock here? Thanks in advance. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, which user am I checking? I wasn’t involved with KathleenKathleen12345 (talk · contribs) thus far. Thanks, Thanks Dreamy Jazz for the mention. The block for NWPD media is a soft block, though I could have went for a hard block due to the editing. In any event the block log correctly represents my intention, and I would treat it as a soft block for the purposes of contemplating sanctions around sock editing. N.J.A. | talk 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) N.J.A. | talk 10:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Partially blocked IP 112.200.44.30 keeps adding unsourced content

Anon user 112.200.44.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has been partially blocked on September 12, 2020 for adding unsourced content, seems to have returned to adding content without references. Affected pages need to be investigated and reverted if necessary. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have investigated into all of the IP's edits and have reverted problematic edits where necessary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats by two IPs

IPs 128.127.106.237 and 106.215.241.123 have both threatened to file an FIR (first information report?). diffs: [240], [241] Dylsss (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Information: 128.127.106.237 may be a proxy according to Proxy IP Checker. However, that tool is not being maintained. RIPE shows it belongs to a small IP range owned by a hosting company. The other one appears to be from India. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Justdoinsomeedtits on The Devil All the Time (film)

Justdoinsomeedtits appears to believe they own the The Devil All the Time (film) article. The lede initially said "The film received mixed to positive reviews from critics, who praised the performances (particularly those of Holland and Pattinson) but criticized its grim tone and violence." but they removed it with an edit summary which said "Please point to a source criticizing the film for having a grim tone or being violent".

I did exactly that which they quickly reverted claiming "If you think the reviews criticize the movie for being violent or for being grim, you seem to have misread them".

I added the references back with lengthy quotes illustrating that they criticized the tone and violence and they reverted it again claiming "Please refrain from removing valid, sourced information from an article in favor of inaccurate, improperly sourced material that better suits your personal opinion. Further such behavior will result in a report."

I noted that the sources were literally quoted and they reverted again and slapped templates on my talk page saying I needed to " moderate yourself so as not to offend."

TL:DR Justdoinsomeedtits asked for sources when they were provided they edit warred because they want to control the way the film is portrayed. Helper202 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a reading comprehension issue. The movie is violent and has a grim tone - it is not being criticized for "being violent" or "having a grim tone", nor are its violence or its grim tone the object of criticism in any of the reviews cited by Helper202 (aside from calling its grimness "exciting but a little wearying" - hardly a point that can be used as a summation of its negative reviews in their entirety). What the source reviews in fact take issue with are a "lack [of] depth", being "unflinchingly centered on white faces", and being "repetitive" and "simplistic". All of these are actual criticisms - "it is violent" or "it has a grim tone" are not, at least as far as the cited reviews are concerned.

As far as "ownership", I see no difference between Helper202's behavior and mine, with the exception that my edits constitute criticisms directly quoted from cited reviews and Helper202's constitute a misreading of his cited material or perhaps an unfamiliarity with the meaning of "criticism". Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This sort of "critics said X"/"no, they didn't" is why any critical summary should be properly sourced. If you want to say that there's a critical consensus, you need to find a source that says there's a critical consensus. Otherwise, it's just synthesis based on cherry-picked sources (two random critics said X, so we're going to ignore what every other critic said and say that X is the critical consensus). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

TheRealityPost Spam links self promotion

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

---

TheRealityPost is posting spam links of his website. Please see. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Payal_Ghosh&diff=prev&oldid=979742100

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 Alexjonesissupercool

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

Is it worth persevering with escalating warnings for this user, or is it likely a WP:NOTHERE situation based on the username and things like this? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Materialscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptor Editor 76.66.141.232

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 76.66.141.232 is still keeping doing the same thing over and over again. It's still the same person He still keeps putting up random people again and again. It's so annoying and frustrating. You said you would block him and you haven't. Why haven't you done it yet? Please block him or else he will keep doing it. Here's a list of [242]

Blocked for 1 week. As far as I can tell, none of the credits the user has added over the last few months are verifiable, even on IMDB. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:20, 22 September 2020 (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.

Blueandwhite87

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.

---

Blueandwhite87 (talk · contribs)

This editor has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. They have, as far as I can see, never responded. I was inclined to block, but thought to raise here first. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 19:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor was blocked twice before for adding unsourced content; the second time (July 2018) the blocking editor unblocked per this edit where the editor said they'd add a source. Since then, they've been warned six times on their talk page about making unsourced edits. At the same time, the user has made zero edits to article talk space (except for the automated edits that are done when a page is moved) and a grand total of 2 edits to user talkspace, one of which was in response to getting blocked. This was despite getting a huge number of notes from other editors on their talk page during the same time period (including a bunch of notes asking the editor to use edit summaries, which the editor apparently ignored). Therefore, it doesn't seem that this editor is willing to engage with the concerns of other editors unless they are blocked. Giving the situation, I think that a block would be appropriate as it may be the only way to get their attention. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, I hadn't even looked at the block log. Further evidence of the long term disruption, and the fact that they can communicate, they just choose not to... GiantSnowman 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This editor continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. Is nobody else concerned at this? GiantSnowman 17:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am! Robby.is.on (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2020 (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.

gross incivility caught in filter

97.37.32.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gross incivility caught in the edit filter. IMO time to remove the IP's ability to hit the save button. Including tpa please. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 36h--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

T0mk0us and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

T0mk0us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a spillover from the Kiev/Kyiv topic. I am embarrassed to take too much attention of the community for this, but this user is really disruptive. They have 110 edits, from what I see, they are clearly net negative for Wikipedia. They have stated their position very clearly [243], that they believe that everything which refers to the city of Kyiv, including historical contexts, must be blanket moved to Kiev. Note that there is no consensus of the community to support this point of view, quite the opposite, the currently running discussions will likely be closed with a decision that historical uses must stay at Kiev. The user is also consistent, they are edit-warring at Principality of Kiev (4 reverts so far: [244], [245], [246], [247]), they disrupt the talk pages (note edit summary: [248] - we are talking btw about a 12th century polity), and they demonstrate a particularly clear IDHT behavior at the talk pages of their opponents, KIENGIR example and K.e.coffman (example basically accusing them in edit-warring. I just do not see how they can productively edit Wikipedia, and it looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. KIENGIR repeatedly asked me to do something about the user, I was hesitant to block because, even though I am not involved with the article, the user managed to personally attack me on this very page ([249] [250] - if someone wants to know why these aspersions are bullshit I will be happy to discuss but this is not the point here). Since they continued to edit-war and accuse their opponents, rather than themselves, in edit-warring, I finally blocked them indef today, but then I thought this is not a good idea, unblocked them, and brought the matter here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't spend false information about me. I never said that historical contexts should include ukrainian transliteration Kyiv. Only that all references to the modern capital of Ukraine should be renamed to Kyiv. Both users KIENGIR and K.e.coffman repeatedly reverted my changes in the page of the principality of Kiev, even those related to the modern capital of Ukraine, and regardless that illustrations are named Principality of Kyiv. That is why I have accused them of edit warring, because it was. I have never attacked you personally, but I have presented to you your own citations where you attackin other users, calling them idiots, for example. You are telling that what I say is a bullshit, isn't it a personnal atack on me? It is. Why my 110 edits are negative to Wikipedia? Because I did 4 reverts (during three days) of ONE article? I have translated the article "Flag of Kyiv" for English Wikipedia. And I am trying to enrich articles about Ukraine in English Wikipedia, when I can, because I have a full time job. At the beginning, article was named Flag of Kiev, because, at the time of translation, the consensus was to use Kiev. I have never did edit-warring, so please, stop calling me disruptive, negative, etc. Thank you.T0mk0us

If you say this is not usage in historic context (12-13th centuries) you are not competent to edit Wikipedia which is actually my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Then why the picture is named "Inner Principality of Kyiv" ?

And, I repeat, I never stated that ALL historical pages should be changed to Kyiv. I am competent to edit Wikipedia. A have a master of Architecture degree and know very well History and Architecture of Ukraine. T0mk0us (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What picture? What are you talking about? And, well, you have stated that in all instances where the city of Kiev/Kyiv is mentioned Kiev must be replaced by Kyiv. I provided the diff above, which literally says this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Presumably he's using this poor edit to justify his worse one. I have restored the pre-absurdity version. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it could be the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am not touching to any historical pages about Kiev from this time. Will wait for the consensus. However, I would like to mention, that your words "We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)" shows your unacceptance of Ukraine as an independent country and its right to have only one official language - Ukrainian. It is also an attack against Ukraine and Ukrainian identity. I think that for you, like for most Russians, Ukrainians are inferior beings, IMHO. It is not a personnal attack, it is just what I am thinking, In My Humble Opinion. In all this Kiev/Kyiv battle the question was not about changing name of the city, but of changing its pronounciation from Russian to Ukrainian. Ukrainian government is not involved in any propaganda. Russian government is. Russia is continuing war against Ukraine. Russia is trying to interfere in internal affairs of other countries - USA, Great Britain, etc. The whole world knows about this.

Thank you. T0mk0us (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You can derive from my words whatever you like (same way as you have derived from my user page, which clearly says that I am Dutch, that I am Russian, and in addition concluded that I am lying - I am still waiting for apologies and/or a block), but it is absolutely ridiculous to imply that I do not recognize the independence of Ukraine. May I please remark that, not even talking about my contribution in establishing consensus which is still being used on Crimean articles despite hard work of pro-Russian POV pushers to change it - to match my contribution, in terms of both number of edits and volume and quality of added material, to the articles on Ukrainian topics, you will have to work for many years.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Probable sock --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Ymblanter please stop WP:Wikihounding pro-Kyiv editors even after Kiev/Kyiv RM was closed. You knowledge WP:Beurocracy to block those who disagree with you is commendable, but you might want to consider a wikibreak from doing that (or editing Wikipedia in general) because it is becoming disruptive. And while your knowledge of WP:Beurocracy is great, you still forgot that WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and you cannot know the future to say things like Note that there is no consensus of the community to support this point of view, quite the opposite, the currently running discussions will likely be closed with a decision that historical uses must stay at Kiev -> you cannot know the future Ymblanter and hence do not know if editors, following Kiev->Kyiv RM decision, will decide that Kyiv should be used in most instances on Wikipedia (and only excluding idiomatic expressions such as "Chicken Kiev" per the fact that they are idiomatic expressions), because Kyiv never changed its name in all of it 10+ centuries of existence, and only the transliteration/romanization of it into English changed over years (to Kiovia, Kiyev, Kiev, Kijow etc.), or whether editor will support the solution you are lobbying will only allow Kyiv to be used in modern context and will forbid its usage in pre 1995 historic usage. @T0mk0us please also re-consider the tone with which you are communicating with Ymblanter (and other editors such as KIENGIR and K.e.coffman) and make sure you are always polite and constructive in all your edits and comments, because that is explicitly asked for in WP:Civility. Especially when communicating with someone like Ymblanter, who has a strong WP:Systematic bias against all Ukraine-related topics, you should always remember to discuss edits and not the editor. If you absolutely have to discuss the editor (rather than their edits), such as in the case where you are accusing Ymblanter of being disruptive over many years in Talk:Kiev/naming and other discussions, by silencing and blocking (which for what it is worth, is indeed true), you need to do a much better job at mining through the Talk:Kyiv/naming 15 pages of archives and other discussions and finding the exact diffs that Ymblanter used over the years to block/threaten/intimidate pro-Kyiv editors to help maintain an illusion of Consensus for a wrong title (thankfully, given Ymblanter's prolific legacy, there are dozens if not more diffs that you can find there that prove this). Heck, if you actually do a good job of digging those disruptive diff's on Ymblanter you might be able to turn this into WP:BOOMERANG (though don't count on it much: you are an inexperience editor, with very few edits and as well as very limited "wiki-knowledge" of wiki-markup/policies&guidelines/even things like signing your own posts; plus, in additino to your juniority, Ymblanter is indeed correct in saying that most enwiki admins try not to get themselves mixed up in Eastern European topics, so they might just ignore this whole discussion) Lastly, T0mk0us try avoiding emphasizing that Ymblanter is a "Russian enwiki admin" (while it is true that Ymlanter is Russian (per their TP profile), they themselves try to de-emphasize that (and they, same as anyone, have a full right to that), so you should respect their desire to not be referred to as "Russian admin" and in general try to maintain a respectful tone in all your communication with Ymblanter and other editors.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you very much. Will follow your suggestions! T0mk0us (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Just a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions." So, why is it me who is accused in the edit-warring and disruptive behavior while it were other users KIENGIR and K.e.coffman who started to revert my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Four reverts is edit warring - take it to talk page after the first. Spamming notices on other user talk-pages is also not good form. And statements like this "It is also an attack against Ukraine and Ukrainian identity. I think that for you, like for most Russians, Ukrainians are inferior beings, IMHO. It is not a personnal attack, it is just what I am thinking", etc. in this very ANI, you are making the very case against you. Seems pretty WP:TENDENTIOUS. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Walrasiad please do not accuse me of being WP:TENDENTIOUS. It was not me who started reverts. I never spammed notices on user pages, just repeated what they did. My statements is not making case against me, they are just showing the reason of Ymblanter attaks against Ukrainian names. T0mk0us (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

T0mk0us, you have definitely been editing tendentiously. I was about to block you indefinitely when I saw you wrote this, I am not touching to any historical pages about Kiev from this time. That's the only reason you are not blocked.

Please, reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. You are editing disruptively, casting aspersions, and assuming bad faith. Saying it's not a personal attack because you're simply voicing your opinion is not going to fly and is not going to protect you from a block going forward. So, this is your only warning, as far as I'm concerned. If you continue to edit disruptively, I will block you. Salvio 18:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Walrasiad,Ymblanter Please stop harassing me just because I am pro Ukraine. T0mk0us —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: has right, you are one of those time-consuming editors who steal precious editing time from users and administrators, and denying repeatedly what you did and all the time invent tendentious verbiage why you are innocent and everybody else in the universe is guilty. Despite everything was told, but you are failing WP:LISTEN. Does not matter who starts reverting, our policies are clear. Also, in some cases all contributions are reverted, per policy and we don't cherrypick necessarily all the details, if all the case is problematic, only after successful dispute resolution we resolve such issues. Both me and Coffman fairly reverted you, twice, and I started a discussion in the talk. Policy says about edit warring repeatedly, but it also depends on the frame and other whereabouts. Per that, your edit-warring notices were completely useless, since if likely after the second revert there is not talk page discussion and a user is continuing without engaging it, then a warning should be considered. You disregarded our notices and warnings, and acted against policies, and only you did clear edit warring despite the talk page discussions and per the number of your reverts. But you were told earlier this, but here you again tried to depict the things differently. WP is transparent, no long-term succes on those who try to mislead or treat others like fools. That said, this was the very last time I explained you the situation - instead of using this time for wise editing - and if you still deny or explain yourself out, that is as well tendentious & disruptive editing, and you very likely will receive a block for also that. I hope I don't have to revisit this subject again, and you better avoid trolling my talk page in the future.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

I would support a block per WP:NOTHERE, as T0mk0us appears to be motivated by ethnic animus. See for example:

• "Russia has nothing to do in the edit of Ukrainian pages", via edit summary -- this is a page about a state of East Slavs who only later developed into Ukrainian, Russian, etc ethnic groups.
• I think that for you, like for most Russians, Ukrainians are inferior beings, IMHO. -- in this ANI thread
• Also relevant is this comment from 2009, bottom of diff: Are you supporting russia, soviet union, all the KGB thing? I know that Hungarians do not like Ukrainians, but are you, personnaly dislike Ukrainians?.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor also moved Kiev Central Bus Station to Kyiv Central Bus Station without discussion, and then an IP suddenly participates in this ANI case who only stared editing as of today (Sep, 23). Very suspicious. I agree with Ymblanter, T0mk0us is WP:NOTHERE. There needs to be admin action. We don't want this discussion to drag out any further. It will just be a waste of everyone's time. Jerm (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2020 (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 keeps pushing spelling variant with deceptive edit note: "Fixed typo"

2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:E471:60B7:FBA8:818A/64 keeps pushing British spelling and date formats, despite of numerous reverts and guidances:

• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:C0B8:823A:8DF0:A37
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:69D4:518B:5446:F24D
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:459C:EA7E:9A4E:DEEA
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:102C:2C2C:A44D:5060
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:A557:AB6B:76D8:DDAC
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:F415:417B:2690:9DD5
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:751C:5531:9D0:7C2A
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:1C5C:D436:7E26:E51E
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:3956:E7B2:61CF:35BA
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:55D:5E0C:896F:F206
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:8C6A:DDB:44F7:EA3 blocked for short term (ineffective, address never used again)
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:58C3:BC87:3DE1:70A6
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:9E3:35C8:ABF9:E278
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:C472:D975:29DA:2DBB
• User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:31AF:4EBD:A03:16E

(I don't know what would be the appropriate IP range.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotheina (talk • contribs)

Looks like 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/65 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and I don't see any collateral on that range. We could try blocking for a month? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the range for 48 hours with a note to read WP:ENGVAR before proceeding; hopefully that gets their attention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I meant 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you used that anyway - well done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Question: would User talk:2A00:23C7:559F:CB00:0:0:0:0/64 be seen by anyone? If not what is its purpose? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've always assumed that anyone in that range would see it, but maybe not? WP:ENGVAR is in the block reason, so hopefully they'll at least see that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to communicate with IPv6 editors sometimes. If their IP address changes very often, it's almost impossible. There's no way to communicate with an entire IP range. Unless they actively go looking for messages on random pages, they'll never see anything put anywhere except their current IP talk page. The WMF has some major changes planned for the future, so I guess we'll see how those work out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When – during the second Kamala Harris administration? EEng 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I'm guessing, it's related to meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, which is being pushed despite near-universal objection from the community. SQL^{Query me!} 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I was merely referring to the glacial rate at which WMF projects proceed. EEng 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate but related, it's also worth remembering that even if it is a static IP, communicating with an editor without an account using the mobile website is (AFAIK still) difficult. Sure their talk page may stay the same, but unless they're experienced enough to know to check it, messages are going to go unheeded simply because they don't know they have them. Does this apply to the iOS app too? If so, even if the IP wasn't changing it's not surprising they would have no idea barring that block. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, so don't use it. I've been almost exclusively editing from a phone for over 4 years,  and only used the mobile website once, only long enough to figure out it's pointless.  John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  @John from Idegon: don't see how that helps us dealing with the thousands of editors who do use it unless you convince the WMF to shut it off. The whole point of this thread is how we can communicate with editors who are potentially unfamiliar with Wikipedia, who may not even know talk pages exist and this includes some who only ever seem to use the mobile site or in this case the mobile app, at least on whatever device the IPs are attached to. (Potentially these editors could also edit using a desktop or laptop computer, or a tablet, but these may have different IPs due to using a different network connection or SIM card.) As I already mentioned editors familiar with the limitations of the mobile site could easily regularly check their talk pages so the primary problem is always going to be those who are aren't familiar. I suspect they may be more likely to use both. (As much as anything because of they probably use and edit more often so even with an equal chance of them using it for any given edit or read, it becomes more likely.) I personally rarely edit with my phone finding both the mobile site and the desktop site too annoying to use without a mouse and preferably a keyboard too, but when I do (without these), I find both sites useful depending on the situation. But it's a moot point for me, because I also never edit with IPs so that limitation with the mobile site is irrelevant. Also since I use both I will eventually find out I have new messages even if I was using IPs. Again none of this helps us with our problems communicating with editors who do use IPs and do use the mobile site. Potentially the app too (like the OP) although no one has commenting on that so I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have access to a recent iOS device, but after some testing the Android app at least seems to suffer from the same flaw i.e. absolutely no indication of new messages, or even that you have a talk page, if editing without an account. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for the iOS app. So someone editing from an IP and exclusively using the app would have no idea they have new messages, no matter how little their IP changes, unless they know to check. An interesting point is that the app doesn't seem to support viewing the history, it instead opens it as a link. It does support talk pages but the view talk at the bottom treats it as a link albeit a Wikipedia one meaning you can either open it in your browser or in the app. Anyway if you open stuff in the browser, you could see signs of new messages. But only if your browser is defaulting to desktop. If it defaults to the mobile site as I believe is the default for phone browsers, then you'll have no indication. And yes I confirmed that AFAICT, there's still no indication of new messages for editors not logged in, on the mobile site. I mostly tested on my desktop computer and browser using the mobile site but there was also some testing on Firefox on Android and some on Chrome. The desktop site is still the same with the orange box of doom, although I forgot that caching means you may not always see the new messages box for a while. Of course once you edit you should see it. But an IP editor just browsing, including an editor who browses on the desktop site sometimes but only ever edits with the mobile site or Android and probably iOS app may take a while to find out they have new messages unless they specifically check. And getting back to the main point, an editor without an account who only ever uses the mobile site or Android and probably iOS app at least on the device which has the IP with the new messages, will have no idea unless they specifically check. Editor's personal opinions of the mobile site or Android app or iOS app or whatever seem beside the point except if you believe you can convince the WMF to stop these. A personal dislike or non use of them doesn't change the fact some people do use them, sometimes apparently exclusively and sometimes without accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Perma Block the entire range - The editor has proven it's nothing more then an annoyance to the project. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is a /64 that's almost certain to be one user, so a longer block to prevent this is absolutely going to be reasonable if it continues - but I definitely support the idea of giving them this shorter block to get their attention just in case they're just misguided, given the acknowledged issue with communicating with IPv6 users. ~ mazca ^talk 19:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User IvanMisner

• IvanMisner (talk · contribs)

Blatant vandal, switching the main image for the subject at Ivan Misner to an obviously digitally manipulated image. Claims to be the subject of the article [251]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I'm not sure it's vandalism, although that image does look rather odd. I've blocked as possible impersonation. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Rather odd is an understatement. It is utterly bizarre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

While the image did go through Photoshop, it struck me as "another pose" probably taken at the same time as the image it replaced. The image it replaced has been nominated for deletion on the Commons here due to licensing issues. My guess is that the recently uploaded high resolution version has the same licensing issues. If this editor is in fact Misner, and he can demonstrate that he, not the photographer, owns the rights, then this photo will be allowed to stay on the Commons if and when it is challenged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe his head is really that huge. I don't know, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Can we get a fact check? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparent legal threats on S.U.C.C.E.S.S.

FeelGooda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made a legal threat in their edit summary For the record, should a formal testimonial distributed by an law enforcement agency with witnesses documenting an assault by an assailant causing damage to the Canadian agency indicated on this page, including bodily harm to staff personnel or property with conscious intent whereby investigation indicates causation of such actions perpetuated from the information displayed on this Wikipedia page, the admin as a representative to Wikipedia abides by their previous action and content reversion, I believe they are referring to me, though I am not an admin. They have been making multiple pseudo-edits adding spaces and making threats and intimidating other editors in the edit summary under Defamationz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FakeVerify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. If an admin could take a look, that would be great, thanks. Dylsss (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• None of the accounts are active at this moment. Nonetheless, I have protected the article for one week and warned FeelGooda with the {{uw-legal}} template. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wandering Green User

Wandering Green User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since August 2019 and almost 100% of their edits have been creating templates, userboxes, and other miscellany in their userspace in blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Alongside that, they've uploaded numerous copyright violating images. By my count, I've found literally only two edits that were actually related to developing the encyclopedia: one adding a period and one adding a (probably unnecessary) image. This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and just wants to use the site as a free web host. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see lots of templated messages, but no indication that anyone has attempted to have a discussion. Did I miss it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nathan2055:I did see him helping another user by creating a user box.[252] People who are here to help people build an encyclopedia provide value. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimeedian

User:Wikimeedian, in this edit posted a highly offensive comment, allegedly as part of a barnstar award, which included the phrase: i liked it better 'back in the day when we would just make fun of the Jewish Nazi prisoners (sorry if part of this may have come off offensive). I have used revision deletion, at the email request of the user who was the recipient, but any admin can confirm the diff. This may have been intended as a joke of some sort, but I do not find it funny, and neither did the recipient. Both of us had distant relatives who were murdered during the Holocaust. I ask that the user be at least admonished, and warned that anything of the sort will result in a prompt block. Perhaps an immediate block is warranted, as Wikimeedian clearly knew this was offensive. I will formally notify Wikimeedian of this thread. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't just block them. Natureium (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Because I am generally very reluctant to unilaterally block without previous warnings. So I am asking for opinions here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Note this is not a new user. They've admitted it's a "fresh start" account and there are things about them that may be familiar to someone. They routinely remove things from their user talk, so it's necessary to look at the history. They demonstrate significant CIR problems in the very little article-space work they've done, so I'm guessing their previous stint here was short-lived. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who they are or used to be, but I'm not playing this game. Indeffed. For the record, I think we're being trolled - they say they're a fresh start or whatever (per AlanM1's link above) but their userpage is trying to make them out as a brand-new user (and yet has that "Methmetics" joke, whatever that's supposed to be). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As a note, while I often disagree with GN in terms of warning/immediate block, in this case I also believe we are being trolled - too many warning signs all going off at once. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Good block by GeneralNotability. Troll is spot on I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps vandalizing articles

Hi, someone under the IP 75.181.163.167 keeps vandalizing articles. That person was already given several warnings which did not help. --Uostofchuodnego (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Uostofchuodnego: Straight vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV which is faster most of the times. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Self-promotion since 2007

Normally, I'd just handle obvious self-promotion like this by myself, but this has been going on since 2007. jniccum has been adding himself and links to articles he's written on lawrence.com and other media since his third edit in 2007. He's never responded to the small number of messages he's received about it, nor has he edited outside of mainspace. Is there a reason I'm missing that he's just been given a couple of warnings? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, Clarion444 seems to be doing the exact same thing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I usually draw a line between overt citation spamming and someone who's habitually citing themselves. The first is inherently disruptive, but the second doesn't have to be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit that jniccum made to the Smothers Brothers article didn't even support the information where it was added. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Use of two accounts suggests this is not good faith self-citation, but instead deliberate refspamming. I suppose we could ask a CheckUser whether these are actually the same person? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not necessary. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's enough of a behavioral match to indef User:Clarion444. There are other Niccum refs but a quick spot-check suggests they are added by unrelated editors. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see User:Notfrompedro has undone a lot of these. Would have been nice if their WP:ES had linked to this discussion--I and at least one other editor were misled by the one that was used. DMacks (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This was started after I began removing the links. I left a note on Yamla's page because they had warned Jniccum in the past.[253] I only found out about this after seeing jpgordon's comment on Clarion444's talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying the timeline (as well as working on cleaning up the mess, even if confusing for us outsiders' watchlists). DMacks (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I think jpgordon probably saw my edits and followed up leading to this report but I just assumed contacting the first admin who had warned jniccum a couple of years ago would be the right move. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's right. I saw your edit on Laurie Anderson and got suspicious. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

He's been using a lot of IPs as well.

• • 2001:48F8:9021:1C86:7193:225E:192A:C9D7 (examples [254] [255])
  • 24.124.4.220 (examples [256] [257] [258])
  • 24.225.110.75 (examples [259] [260])
  • 24.124.125.33 (examples [261] [262])

I'm still finding more. He's been at this for years. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears as though the editor simply looks for places in articles to add links to Niccum articles, whether they actually support the content or not. For another example (similar to the Smothers Brothers edit above), on Kathy Griffin, they add a Niccum link to he second season of My Life on the D-List, which premiered June 2006, earned Griffin the 2007 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Reality Program, non-competition...however the Niccum interview was written in 2006 and the 2007 Emmy awards had not yet been awarded. On Nicholas Sparks, the article content is After being offered a full sports scholarship for track and field, at the University of Notre Dame, Sparks accepted and enrolled, majoring in business finance but the Niccum article (interview) has Sparks only saying I was a track and field athlete and ended up going to Notre Dame. Nothing about a scholarship or major. I did find a handful of useful edits that did not involve citing their own work. Per WP:SELFCITE, I think Wikipedia articles would be better served if this editor offered their links on article talk pages and let other editors make the call whether to cite them. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree. If the editor agrees to using {{refideas}} on the article talk page, there would be no reason to block. Without such a promise, the editor is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts for reference spamming, self-promotion, and abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring allegation advanced against user:HistoryEtCulture

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

---

On September 13 as evident from the following article's revision history, I have taken an effort to cleanup articles of religious bodies and the like. Particularly looking upon the article P'ent'ay, I purged the article of unsourced information and adapted it toward a neutral point of view in accordance with neutrality and veriability guidelines prevalent on this encyclopedia. Since then the user whom this report is about has in apparent good faith, attempted to rewrite the article in collaboration. Upon reviewing their contributions I had to, again, remove unverifiable information from the article alongside correcting grammatical errors. As a result of my contributions the content of the article has been blatantly reverted and extended with overlinked text within the primary infobox and the re-adding of unverified history pertaining to the founder of P'ent'ay churches and organizations. Responding to this matter at hand I began a discussion thread on the talk page of the article to discuss why their contributions have been reverted (without directly mentioning them in an effort to forgo any resonance of potentially harassing or personally demeaning them). Their response since then has been to continue reverting the contributions with ahistorical, unverifiable information and clutter the infobox alongside poor grammatical corrections. I would desire to see an end to this conflict as soon as humanly possible; this currently appears to be yet another edit war. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The contributor has opted to respond, however it seems as if they decide to personally attack the Orthodox Tewahedo and label them derogatory terms. Please refer to Talk:P'ent'ay. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Since elevating this situation and discussing, it would appear a consensus is in close reach. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The alleged Disparaging a religious group charge against me is a FALSE ACCUSATION. How in the world is the statement that says 'there was no such claim made that "P'ent'ay churches are the original church pre-State church of the Roman Empire-era". The claim was that Jesus founded Christianity and P'ent'ay churches are Christian, they are not a separate non-Christian religion as some Orthodox Tewhado sectarians supremacists would would claim) in that certain minority of sectarians who happened to be Orthodox have used the false claim that Pentays aren't Christian in order to disparage or discredit Pentays.' A few statements made in the talk page seemed to espouse that ideology but, all I did was mention the existence of that ideology and said that the comment can be misconstrued as condoning similar disparaging statements, but I never said that 'all Orthodox use it to disparage Protestants', which is a false statement that I never made. I assumed later on that the issue was a good faith misunderstanding until I end up hearing about the false accusations and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents charges that have been lodge against me. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming the alleged disparaging of a religious group has to do with "The claim was that Jesus founded Christianity and P'ent'ay churches are Christian, they are not a separate non-Christian religion as some Orthodox Tewhado sectarians supremacists would would claim). — HistoryEtCulture" I consider that offensive towards Orthodox Tewhado Christians, and that also sounds like HistoryEtCulture has an WP:AGENDA. Also, I didn't really check the sources to see if they were reliable. That would be more for the articles talk page, but I do want to comment on this. HistoryEtCulture, do not use Wikipedia as a source to cite content per WP:CIRC. Jerm (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In the event this somehow offends someone in any way, I am truly sorry, it was not intended to the offensive in any way whatsoever, and I will try to pay attention the the specific wordings next time. I am truly surprised and perplexed that this can in any way be misconstrued to be offensive. But, I'll learn how to operate under the norms of Wikipedia. I still don't know how this can be seen as offensive unless the word "some" that I used in this context was purposely ignored during the the deliberation of this Administrative Notice. The word "some" signifies that the issue in questions is not a generalization of a group because it is a word that is synonymous to the phrase "certain minority of". HistoryEtCulture (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from continuing to undo edits because from our conversation which has stalled on the discussion page of P'ent'ay Christianity, and upon here thanks to intervention, it appears you continue to forgo collaborating constructively. I have reverted your contributions one final time as we continue to discuss the matter at hand, however after doing so I do publicly acknowledge I should have not done so pertaining to advice freely gifted from Wikipedia administration prior. Forgive me, Wikipedia administration for doing so. If they continue, I will just let you handle the situation. As for now, I am bowing out until they seek to discuss instead of going off-topic on some parts and refraining from dialogue. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I am quite annoyed now. When you first arrived onto the English Wikipedia, you attempted to merge templates without any formal discussion. I reverted those contributions. Now, I examine your contributions to see that you have indeed merged those said templates without any formal discussion whatsoever. I agree with @Jerm: in alledging a WP:AGENDA-driven contribution period here. This is unhealthy for the encyclopedia, and I will not partake in it any further. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfair use of reverts on the deletion of factually accurate information by TheLionHasSeen (talk).

How is this a falsehood, a lie, or misinfromation? Someone is just deleting stuff without even reading any of my contributions.

| type = Eastern Christianity
Eastern Protestant Christian

| main_classification = Evangelicalism | orientation = Primary Denominations: Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, Mennonite (Anabaptist), Holiness movement.
Other Denominations: Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Adventist, etc.

| language = Oromo, Amharic, Wolayta Sidama, Tigrinya, Somali, other Languages of Ethiopia, Languages of Eritrea, and Ethiopian-Eritrean Diaspora Languages (e.g. English, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, French, Dutch, Hebrew, Finnish, etc.)

| area = Ethiopia, Eritrea, United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Israel, Kenya, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, South Africa, and other parts of the Ethiopian-Eritrean Diaspora

|founded_date=19th-20th centuries|founder=Kale Heywet: Sudan Interior Mission (SIM) in 1927
Mekane Yesus: Peter Heyling and Gudina Tumsa in 1959
Mulu Wongel: in 1967
Meserete Kristos: in ~1950s|founded_place=Ethiopian Empire
(Ethiopia and Eritrea)}}

P'ent'ay (from Ge'ez Script: ጴንጤ), or Wenigēlawī (from Ge'ez Script: ወንጌላዊ for Evangelical), are originally Amharic-Tigrinya language terms for a Christian of a Protestant denomination, widely used in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and among Ethiopians and Eritreans in the diaspora as the terms for Evangelical Christian. In English speaking contexts, it may be referred to as Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelicalism or the Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelical Church.

Ethiopian and Eritrean Evangelical Christians are the result of American and European Protestant missionary work and among youth who left the Orthodox Tewahedo churches because of theological differences, and later fanned by persecution against them. P'ent'ay Christians schismed from the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, other branches of Christianity, or converted from other religions with the aid of Protestant missionaries to reform Ethiopian Christianity from what they believe to be doctrinal and theological diversions. The major lasting influences on Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelicalism have been Pentecostalism, the Baptist tradition, Lutheranism, the Mennonite tradition, while several other influential streams of theology exist. Since the creation of P'ent'ay churches and organisations, prominent movements among them have been Pentecostalism, the Baptist tradition, Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, and the Mennonites.

Primary Denominations ...

• The Ethiopian Kale Heywet (Word of Life) Church - a charismatic Evangelical denomination with Pentecostal and Holiness Baptist (Baptist) roots. It is associated with the Sudan Interior Mission (SIM), an interdenominational organization, and has an Eritrean branch.
• The Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (Place of Jesus) - a Lutheran denomination which includes a Presbyterian-leaning synod. The Eritrean Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (also know as Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea) is the Eritrean Lutheran church.
• The Ethiopian Full Gospel Believers' (Mulu Wongel) Church, a Pentecostal denomination with Mennonite influence.
• The Meserete Kristos (Christ Foundation) Church, a Mennonite denomination with Pentecostal influence.

Other denominations ... .

And the edit conflict are deleting my work.

References

HistoryEtCulture (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of merging templates without any formal discussion: Seriously, I put up the "merge to" and "merge from" signs up for all four template pages, I kept waiting but no one came to discuss them. So, TheLionHasSeen, came in, they took down all the "merge to" and "merge from" signs and said no discussion happened. In hearing this statement in the edit history log made by TheLionHasSeen, I assumed that because I went through the proper channels but because nobody contested the merger, I was free to merge them myself. In the edit summaries of my mergers, I put the statments "merged Template:Ethiopian diaspora into Template:Ethnic groups in Ethiopia, merger mentioned but no one contested it" and "merged Template:Eritrean diaspora into Template:Ethnic groups in Eritrea, merger mentioned but no one contested it" to signal what I was doing. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Reread my comments here, and upon Talk:P'ent'ay. This is getting out of hand, as I have stated many twice the process of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss yet you seem to forgo any discussion. I ceased discussion for the sake of my own integrity, however as I have logged back into the encyclopedia I see this going nowhere. From adding churches as if they are "founders" to not taking the time to spellcheck with numerous free online sources for the sake of improvement, and from continuing to point a finger without any reasonable discussion, I am tired. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Structure your comments, please. Do not place your comments in random sections as it appears you are attempting to take control of the conversation when there should be no control from either of us. You have to bring a discussion to the table as to why you feel such templates should be merged. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said? I your edits summary made it seem like it was ok to merge it myself if no discussion happened because you took down all the "merge to" and "merge from" signs I put up so others can join the discussion but you took it down and said no discussion happened. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

HistoryEtCulture, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, so all that content related stuff you posted above is a waste of your time, and a waste of time of all the other editors who have to sift through it all looking for anything relevant to this noticeboard. So, I have the same advice for you that I have for TheLionHasSeen: Do not edit war. Do not ever, ever engage in that behavior. Instead, discuss disputed edits on the talk pages of the various articles, with the goal of coming to a consensus agreement. If that is not possible, turn to other forms of dispute resolution. If you edit war, you will be blocked. I hope that this is clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary reverted your proposal for discussion because if you place such a template, you as the proposer must propose via the talk page. There were no discussions hosted whatsoever. Those edit summaries blatantly insinuate that such a proposal is deemed invalid because no discussion on your part was made proposing why it should be merged. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen thank you for intervening. I had apologized prior, as I should not have reverted their contributions again after already clarifying and bringing it to the discussion table. Forgive me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Following a request at RfPP and w/o knowing of this discussion, I have fully protected the page for 48 hrs and issued formal warnings for edit warring to both parties. This needs to resolved on the article talk page. If the edit warring resumes after the protection expires, unpleasantness will follow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. And again, forgive me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears a consensus is not in reach. I am forwarding it to dispute resolution, alongside alleged incivility via an allegedly snide remark. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

After an additional investigation from Wikipedia administrators regarding this subject, they have been permanently banned for sockpuppeting. I would now assume as the administration has performed these actions, that the whole P'ent'ay article subject might be in the clear? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2020 (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.

Anonymous editor behaving like newly blocked account

• 2605:E000:1313:847C:D0E7:307B:4290:CEF4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fongpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New anonymous user made nearly identical edit ([263]) to just-blocked (apparently single-purpose) registered account (similar recent edits: [264][265]) hours after block. Anon user has been notified. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Widr blocked the range, and I semi-protected the page for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Threat at AfD

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

---

Not a legal threat, exactly, but looks like a threat to doxx an editor? 171.76.70.62 in their edit summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BangDB states "We have identified you Vexations. we will expose you." PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a month and range blocked 171.76.68.0/22. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2020 (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 Dtmohyi

• Dtmohyi (talk · contribs)

New editor, adding inappropriate BLP content echoing that from WP:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal, edit-warring over it, and threatening editors over it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits are not neutral and are definitely worded to cast aspersions against individual BLP subjects. The addition of a laundry list of publications also appears to be intended to skew POV and is disruptive due to its sheer length. It's evident that Dtmohyi has a specific point-of-view to push here and is on the cusp of WP:3RR. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this should've been discussed at the articles talk page first before ANI. I don't see any attempt from either side. This is a new editor we're talking about, so I don't expect them to know anything about Wiki policy & guidelines. Jerm (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to them about things, and they're instead focused on trying to report everyone else for their own edit warring. Indefed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd have given him a chance to respond to all the feedback and education. However, there approach may be WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. If Dtmohyi knows what WP:AN3 is, surely they know where the articles talk page is. Jerm (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has been indefinitely blocked by Ian.thomson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As well he should be. Having read his response to all the education he's received, I endorse indef block --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I ask for help please

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

---

In the voice Fargo (season 3) I included in the main cast the actor who plays the partner of the protagonist and among the secondary characters a henchman who, apart from dying in the middle of the season, was certainly by mistake inserted in the main cast (when has ever seen a henchman in the main cast?) But unfortunately a user got me rolled back twice. I ask for help here please, because I never know how to deal with these bullies :( --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: This is a WP:content dispute and the way to deal with it is to discuss the issue on the article talk page i.e. Talk:Fargo (season 3). You will need to explain with inserting your personal interpretation of who is the main cast based on the role they played and the amount of speaking they did, and your personal experience of what you've "seen" before in other main casts, instead of going by the credits; complies with our policies and guidelines especially WP:Original research and WP:Verifiability. Instead I would suggest you bring a reliable secondary source to the discussion which disputes the actor being part of the main cast. Also when you start a discussion here, there is a big box which tells you to notify any editor's you are discussing. Although you didn't name them, it's fairly obvious from the history that you are referring to User:Drovethrughosts. I see that you've made it to their talk page before but you did not notify them of this discussion. I will do so for you this time but please remember to do so in the future. This is especially important here given that you've accused the editor of being a "bullies", which appears to a personal attack by you and the only thing here at this time which has any chance of warranting administrative attention. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, excluding a Wikiproject article assessment, the talk page was last edited in 2017. Ironically that was in relation to the same issue. This is hardly ever a good sign for an ANI thread. Also, as always, if the article content dispute can't be resolved on the article talk page, there are several forms of WP:dispute resolution which can be tried, none of which should involve any of the ANs. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to explain that the fault lies with the Google translator, I trusted it translation of “questo tipo di prepotenze”. But obviously I didn't want to refer to the user with an adjective, but my not used to this type of war edits. In any case I apologize to the user and the administrators for being misunderstood. With the latter also for having the wrong place to raise the question. --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2020 (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.

rollbacker assistance needed with sock cleanup

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.

---

• Amefuri2019 (talk · contribs)

I blocked this user (now locked) following an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/依頼人. Each one of this user's edits was made in violation of a block. Could a rollbacker or administrator revert each edit as appropriate per WP:BLOCKEVASION? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, and moves (except one) reverted as well; this new mass move tool is a huge help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 24 September 2020 (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:Davewikifan2020

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.

---

• Davewikifan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have run into User:Davewikifan2020 on two occasions, coincidently. On both occasions, they were arguing that Turkey is part of Europe, using extremely charged political and racial arguments. See example at this diff. They have posted this or similar on numerous talk pages, including my own, recently. From a review of this user's edits, I have concluded that their only purpose on WP is to promote racial ideas relating to the ancestry of the Turkic people, specifically promoting the idea that they are European/white. On one hand, I would not argue against an indefinite ban of the user, as this is a single purpose account meant to promote racial theories. However, my first thought would be to topic ban this user from promotion their racial theories. In any case, this user's edits are completely unproductive and do nothing to improve WP. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote their own racial beliefs. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davewikifan2020 is now blocked 31 hours by User:Doug Weller for using edit summaries to attack others. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (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.

request for comparison of recreated article

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.

---

Jessa Rhodes has been recreated recently in one go, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessa Rhodes (2nd nomination). I am currently on mobile, so I cant do much now. All I did was checked her awards in the current article, which still doesnt make her notable. Are there any big changes in article or new signs of notability? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup that was pretty much a word for word copy of the deleted article. Deleted per G4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. How is the weather in Baltimore these days? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice, pleasant the past week or so, comfortable with a bit of fall in the air. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hehe. Good to know :) Thanks again. See you around. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2020 (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 by multiple related accounts at Christian Rowan

Mostly promotional and/or political spin. At my request, two administrators assisted in bringing this to a more neutral version, but their work is being persistently undone. Page protection and perhaps a range block may be worth exploring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See blocked account 2001:8004:2770:CDAD:7162:DECB:4BE8:FA99 (talk · contribs). Since then, continued disruption by 131.242.101.250 (talk · contribs) and 131.242.101.248 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Duc4Wikmedia and redirects

Duc4Wikmedia has been creating redirects from film production companies for a long period of time now, many of which are not mentioned at the redirects' targets. These are regularly nominated by me on RfD, where they are deleted unless a different user fixes the problem by adding a respective mention to the article (see the notifications on the user's talk page for reference), and were discussed on WikiProject Redirect's talk page. Thus, their creation should be considered disruptive editing. After being warned twice, they still continued to create Foxxking Entertainment, Foxx Hole Productions, and Reveal Entertainment, some similarly unhelpful redirects. Therefore, I propose to consider a topic ban on redirect creation for the user. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Found at target. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:89EA:72E4:97DB:14B5 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Now found at target", you mean (1, 2). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Page

We have been contacted by an editor claiming that we need to pay him $400 in order to fix an undisclosed paid page on our page or else he will flag it to be deleted.

I don't want to publically publish their details here. Please could you advise on how to process?

Thanks User:Sheffielder22

Sheffielder22 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sheffielder22 you'll need to email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org Praxidicae (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sheffielder22: (non-admin comment). You were right not to post details here. I would forward them to WP:ARBCOM (contact info in that article). They are unlikely to take kindly to blackmail, or to treat it lightly. WP:LEGALTHREATs are bad enough, but illegal ones are something else again. Narky Blert (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing

I have received an email from a person that claims to write Wikipedia articles about people in exchange for money. As a long term editor of Wikipedia this worried me and I know it violates Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. I would like to report the editor, but all proof I have is said email and of course I do not want to accuse anybody wrongly. I will write an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org at the same time to report this behaviour and hopefully we can identify affected articles and either delete them or correct them (remove POV) if required. Please let me know how to proceed and whether to post affected articles/usernames here or not. Best regards --hroest 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). You were right not to post any details here. Another possible place to forward that email is WP:ARBCOM (contact details in that article). That's what I did the last time I got one (except that the cheapskate wasn't even offering me any money), and they courteously replied that they'd identified the emailer as a WP:SOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have to take these things with a grain of salt. There have been instances recently in which people have gone to fairly great lengths (posting phony reviews on noticeboards and the like) to frame productive editors as paid shills. BD2412 T 17:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, the mere thought of that existential sort of situation occurring made me cringe. Editors involved greatly in anti UPE/SPAM who have a target on their back need to be very careful. Unfortunately I fall into this category. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, Celestina007, and Narky Blert: Thanks for your comments, I have forwarded the email to WP:ARBCOM. Hopefully some admin can look into this in more detail (I hope this gets taken seriously, since this destroys the culture and joy of editing). I dont think this is a case of an elaborate scheme to frame some editor and it clearly looks like an account that tries to keep a low profile and only edit very specific articles. --hroest 01:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: also pinging @Primefac and Beeblebrox: as they may be interested. --hroest 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not much to add to the above; if it's off-wiki evidence, mail it in. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass Kyiv disruption

As I guess everybody knows Kiev was renamed to Kyiv in a contentious RM a couple of days ago. Since then, we have been witnessing mass moves and replaces of instances of Kyiv with Kiev ewerywhere, by many users. Whereas some moves are probably justified others are clearly not. Examples of clear disruption include mass out-of-process category moves (example 1, example 2) and mindless replacements of all instances of Kiev with Kyiv (populating a redirect category, introducing a redundant piped link to itself - note that in the last example the action was performed by an administrator) - and this is only from my wacthlist, from which I have removed most of the Ukrainian topic articles earlier this year. To be honest, I am not sure what to do here, I do not have a list of people performing these actions, and I think even if they stop we have enough editors more than happy to continue, but may be someone has a good idea how this transition from Kiev to Kyiv can be made according to the policies. We are talking about thousands of articles, templates, and categories. Ironically, just before the move, somebody - I do not remember who it was - told me that they believe that Kyiv vs Kiev is about a single article and would not have any bearing on other articles. I responded that does not matter what is in the policies people will come to move everything overnight - and now we see it happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Or even this - piped link to a redirect introduced when an article exists.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Historical usage, by the same administrator. I think I am going to stop posting here. I do not think we, as community, are capable of solving this problem. We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blame the piped-link glitches on the visual editor, or file a bug report at the right technical forum. But I highly recommend a Wikibreak, anyway. —Michael Z. 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter! So you say that WP "are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet". What about beeing a Russian Propaganda outlet for at least 25 years? You are russian, doens't matter what you write on your page. When I registered in WP - you were russian, and now you changed your origin to be from Netherlands. It is a ridicoulous lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

And this is a brilliant illustration of my point. Well, who cares about WP:CONSENSUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And may be I am old-fashioned, but "what you say is blatant lie" for me is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For me your words that I "so far failed miserably" and "Would you please stop playing an idiot" for another editor - are clearly personal attacks. Your quotes below, shows clearly, that you prefer Russian names everywhere. For Ukraine - keep russian names, because it is history, doesn't matter that the places are currently in Ukraine. But for Kuril/Kunashir Islands - we keep russian names, because they are currently in Russia. Japanese history is not important. Clearly different logic!
"You are already seeking this for years and so far failed miserably. You may want to look at Talk:Kiev/naming. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS, not on the basis of the opinion of the Ukrainian government. The current consensus is to keep Russian names.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"
"Would you please stop playing an idiot? Kunashir is located in Russia. All countries except Japan recognize this, and therefore the principal names of localities and geographic features located on Kuril Islands are taken from Russian, not from Japanese. Moving articles from Russian names to Japanese names is disruption. (Japanese names were already in the articles, for the record). Adding info about smth currently located in "Kunashiri, Japan" is disruption. You perfectly know this. If you do it once again, I will block your account. Is this sufficiently clear?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)" T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

Look, I am not really here to react to all aspersions of a user who has no useful contribution, resorted to personal attacks and edit-warring, and is not interested in editing in accordance with WP:Consensus, however, the statement that "I prefer Russian names everywhere" is blatantly false. One can easily check that I merely follow WP:CONSENSUS in all articles and many times have reverted users who were replacing Ukrainian names in the articles with Russian names (in particular, in Crimean articles).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the context, the user I was arguing with and trying to explain our policies in relation to Kunashir, Ineedtostopforgetting, was not getting it, I have to take them to ANI, and they received a block. Later on, a checkuser blocked them as a sock. I still estimate however that my interaction with them made my life a few days shorter.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I only came here to find out what Kyiv meant, and I discover that it's foreign for Kiev. Good grief. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

For instance, somebody thought it was a good idea to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv. It's now back to where it was. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for the turn of historical usages such as Kievan Rus'.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And here we go: [266]--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Btw I blocked that user previously for disruptive Ukraine-related editing. May be it is time to continue since they obviously have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And Chicken Kiev was probably created in Saint Petersburg.--Mvqr (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How about "Chicken Petrograd"? That sounds appetizing! EEng 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When the doctors say I have 48 hours left, EEng, I will edit war to change it to "Chicken Leningrad", in your honor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

From Russian jokes#Rabinovich: Rabinovich is arrested on the street in Leningrad. After an hour of being beaten, a KGB agent comes and asks him, "Where were you born?" / He spits out, "Saint Petersburg!" / The KBG agent beats him for ten more minutes and asks him, "Where were you raised?" / "Petrograd!" / The KGB agent beats him for fifteen more minutes and asks him, "Where do you live?" / "Leningrad!" / After a half hour more beating, the KGB agent asks, "And where would you like to die?" / "Saint Petersburg!" Lev!vich 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the subject... Many will have heard the joke about anti-tiger dust: Sitting on a train, Man #1 finds himself opposites Man #2, who has his hat in his lap, crown down and brim up. Man #2 keeps dipping his hand into the hat, withdrawing it, and then flicking his fingers in various directions. Seeing #1 is puzzled, #2 explains: "It's anti-tiger dust, to keep tigers away." Man #1: "But there are no tigers for thousands of miles from here!" Man #2: "That's how well it works!"

OK, so a friend who knows Russian culture well told me that in Russia they tell the same joke, except that the punchline is that #2 leans close and whispers conspiratorially, "Well that's good, because it doesn't work!" Speaks volumes. EEng 08:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PAGE MOVEDGLOBAL SEARCH-AND-REPLACEDON'T CONSIDER CONTEXTEGG ON YOUR FACEMyanmar-Shave Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

eeeeexcellent GeneralNotability (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I echo what Ymblanter said. The language disruption is spreading to traditional transliterations of Russian (or Ukranian) text. See here. It will beg the question of what to do with sources that use the traditional Kiev spelling. RfC likely needed. Anyway, I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that it's not just Kiev/Kyiv that is affected. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I raised this on talk a few days ago, expecting that would happen. On a smaller scale, similar happened when Chinese Communist Party was renamed and we end up with (eg) unnecessary CCPs across articles. It's a pain. RfC not needed, I think. Appropriate way to deal with it would be making a list of Kyiv related articles, having a short period for opposition and moving the ones that nobody opposed. Require a separate RM for the rest (like Chicken Kiev). Not sure how you'll address people unilaterally making changes. Maybe a temporary edit filter where page title contains Kiev/Kyiv, and the editor is not EC confirmed (if so, block move)? Can be done using action = move[267]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. There's no way around doing the work of updating the encyclopedia. And yeah, it's a large encyclopedia, so there's a lot of updating to be done. (Hey maybe we'll all remember this next time we discuss notability guidelines.) It's already being discussed at Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning up associated articles, and I've started a list of related articles and categories at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. Lev!vich 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am greatly surprised that anybody is surprised by mass disruption. What did you imagine was going to happen when the "Kiev" article changed to "Kyiv"? How long have you been on Wikipedia? Walrasiad (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not suprpised, this is precisely what I predicted, including doing so in writing. However, it is still massive disruption and need to dealt with. I have seen that some moves were reverted, some RfCs and RM opened, and some blocks given out, and we probably need more blocks for those who do not get it. What I am actually surprised at is that these users have zero interest in improving articles on Ukrainian topics on Wikipedia. I was single-handedly creating articles on urban localities in Ukraine, we still have several dozens to create, which will probably keep me busy for another couple of years. Here we have a bunch of people who pose as defenders of Ukrainian national idea, they are happy to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv and to replace Kiev with Kyiv in the filenames so that the files turn into redlinks, but they never edited any article of more than a hundred which I created on Ukrainian localities (those still on my watchlist) - except for those of course which are located in Kiev Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously lots of these examples are silly, but isn't it normal to move category trees (e.g. Category:Railway stations in Kiev) to match the name of the parent article? It seems unnecessary to insist on a discussion for each one. – Joe (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Categories always should go via CfD. There is a speedy process for them, which takes two days to process provided no objections have been raised, WP:CFDS, and some of these categories were indeed nominated there but for whatever reason met objections and were moved to a full CfD discussion. Moving categories without involving CfD is out of process move.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I can toss in my two-cents. I work primarily in historical articles, and did not follow (nor participate) in the modern Kiev/Kyiv article discussion (I know better than to wade into nationalist pissing contests). But the wave of disruptions has arisen in historical articles, imposing that spelling anachronistically and rendered many historical entities, events and figures unrecognizable (e.g. Kievan Rus, St. Anthony of Kiev, etc.) with "Kyivan" or "Kyiv". For many (if not most) historical articles, the "Kiev" form is far and away the most common name in English-language history books and general reference works. Wikipedia criteria for an article doesn't end because another article happens to change its name. It seems to me that at least for historical articles, we're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis, via RMs, with reliable sources from general English-language resources. I realize this can become tiresome. As a short-cut, perhaps a general rule can be introduced that considers Kiev -> Kyiv to be a name change, much like Constantinople -> Istanbul in 1923, and similarly adopt a boundary date when that change goes into effect (e.g. 1995), so that historical articles that refer to "Kiev" before that date don't get anachronistically affected. Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  A more recent example is the renaming of Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018. It would be grossly anachronistic to refer to anyone from there who is more than 2 years old as having been born in Eswatini. Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• And now we see that the IP who started the RM was in fact a logged out user topic-banned from Ukraine who was avoiding sanctions. It does not invalidate the RM of course but adds a flavor to the whole thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hello, I am sysop in Ukrainian Wiki. I browsed through diffs Ymblanter provided us, and there are no users active in Uk.Wiki I've noticed. So it seems people coming from news mainly, not from another wiki. If this is of any help. --Brunei (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. There are definitely users active in the Ukrainian Wikipedia: I noticed hat Vitaliyf261 was blocked for disruption here yesterday, because he apparently decided that now everything related to Ukraine must be transliterated from Ukrainian, and AndriiDr who yesterday in this edit not only replace Kiev with Kyiv, buty also Odessa with Odesa, for which currently there is no community consensus. I did not even try to look up all edits related to Kiev -> Kyiv, I only operate with those which are on my wactchlist or were brought to my attention, but it is indeed possible that only a small part of this disruption is coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh yes, and Piznajko, who most likely started the RM while being topic-banned from Ukrainian topics, and today was CU blocked indef, is an active editor of the Ukrainian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Seems like there is some canvassing going on by another IP [268]. Could this IP be the same as the blocked user mentioned by @Ymblanter: above? Walrasiad (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  My guess this is another one. The goal of the blocked user was always to rename Kiev to Kyiv in all contexts; the goal of this IP is pure trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  That IP seems clean on CU. I think we should assume that it is a meat puppet --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Russian brothers messing around pushing Kremlin agenda calling "Pentagon unreliable source" they have returned after page protection ended

These two are constantly adding pro-Russian views and removing US State Dept. or Pentagon sources calling them unreliable. One of the users have returned after a page protection ended due to dispute and has made the same exact revert. User:F.Alexsandr and User:Mr.User200. They are hardcore editing russian missile systems and jet fighter articles to make them look superior by using Russian language sources they also remove US sources critical of them saying its probably "fake". These guys dont belong here. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The user above argues in bad faith. It is one thing to use Pentagon or state department as a source, However the user above uses opinion articles on NewYourkTimes which cite US Africa Command as an undeniable source. Especially in such important and heavily reliant on sources topics like defence and losses of military equipment he continues to use single "sources" or rather opinion articles unsupported by photo, video, or documentary evidence, which support his point of view, not even trying to diversify them. I have proposed to him several times to move discussion to the talk page, but instead of doing this, this is the second time in a week when he uses Noticeboard to ask to restrict me from editing on Wikipedia. F.Alexsandr (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on image board logic of photo or video evidence. We have a thing called reliable and unreliable sources, namely the NYT etc. While RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. This is a rule, if you refuse this you are welcome to enjoy a temporary block. And if you continue that will become a permanent block. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I know that RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. I have never used them and I dont know why you are telling me this. Just because NYT cited USAFRICOM who said that there are 14 russian jets in Lybia does not mean that this should be used in infobox as undeniable statemnt of fact. We know for shure there ARE russian jets in Lybia, but we dont know how many. I proposed to you to move the US claim to a separate section of the article, or to discuss possible settlement in a Talk page, but you have ignored me. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss it, I only responded to give administrator some context. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No you are just sweet talking meaningless words to buy you time so you can edit russian weapon systems to make them look superior. Only a unaware person would discuss anything with a russian troll. dont tell me another word because i am not talking to you. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't make a statement in a noticeboard discussion and then, in effect, "no-contact" them (you can of course say not to ping you etc). Are there diffs of them using depreciated sources as you claim? Currently it sounds rather content-dispute, and thus outside our remit. But obviously there are lots of conduct issues in this area, so I wanted to ask for more specific evidence for your claim and show a conduct basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is a content dispute, and additionally the IP needs a block for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear case of Sockpupetry and POV push (Agenda), both anon IPs (176.88.145.111 & 176.88.142.57) keeps pushing a agenda, Pro Turkish btw, on modern military conflicts. I think a SP investigation should be carried out soon and a Check User. Those war related pages have been systematically vandalized by two Sockpuppet masters. User:Gala19000 (Socks) and User:RandomAccount1235423(List of Socks) + lesser IPs. I think User:Shadow4dark could also make an opinion here.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This ip is sock of RandomAccount1235423 see [[269]] similar personal attacks. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for a month for block evasion, as it seems to be a static IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This ip is likely a sock of User:Maistara. {{3125A|talk}} 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

On User talk: Shaheryar Shabbir#September 2020 when I asked them to declare their paid editor status. UPE + legal threat = clear reason to block as WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If you could go back and read my statement, I've clearly stated I'm new to wikipedia and have very less knowledge and I've asked that If I could move legally, I used the word (IF) there is a huge difference between asking a general question and verbally threatning someone kindly read my statement again before declaring my statement in wrong context, Thank you Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaheryar Shabbir, whether or not you are able to take any sort of legal action is quite beyond the point. Even broaching the subject is grounds for administrative action. Whatever the outcome here, I would respectfully suggest you leave such questions aside. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've already mentioned it 3 times now, That I'm new to wikipedia, can you please read my statement? Please? Thank you Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shaheryar Shabbir: How is this related to the issue at hand? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless this user reads WP:OWN (which they've been told about in at least 3 places- their talkpage, article talkpage and the help desk), WP:PAID and WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, and complies with all three, they should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. All the material they're trying to remove is well sourced controversy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As I told you I'm new on the wikipedia I am not much familiar with how Wikipedia works so I made a mistake by using a statement which caused someone to take it as a legal threat context, I would apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs)

Also please stop trying to delete this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (2nd nomination) was 1 month ago and was a speedy keep as no policy was given for deletion. Your current attempt to AFD it again is just more disruption and will just result it being kept again. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the nomination they need votes which I know people will vote now to get the page deleted, Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It needs a consensus not a vote, and there was a consensus last month to keep it. The more you keep editing without reading key policies, the more likely it is you will be blocked. You still haven't declared your paid editing status correctly. The latest misplaced nonsense that needs cleaning up is the misplaced Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka and Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination). There is a consensus to keep, you will not get it deleted no matter how much you try. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And this user still hasn't posted a redaction of their legal threat, can't believe they haven't been blocked yet..... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

: It wasn't the first legal threat either. See [270] — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can I just propose an indef now? They've still failed to make a disclosure even after a lengthy discussion via our help channel and nearly a dozen messages on their talk page, here and other places. This is not just a TOU vio at this point, it's also well beyond WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  They made this [271] although the template is broken and they're trying to link to a private discord group or something. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  How are they not indeffed for clear legal threats yet? It's a blatant violation of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and having made many edits, they have refused to redact tge legal threat. I would have expected admins to take this more seriously, they usually do. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal threats, he's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Block'em for that as I just did and the situation resolves itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

IP address removing scrapped locomotives from lists of locomotives

IP addresses 171.252.189.23 and 171.252.154.181 have been removing scrapped locomotives from lists of Australian locomotives. See here and here. This is persistent on Commonwealth Railways CL class. 14.202.123.115 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring allegation advanced against user:Ron Wells, MDiv.

Since the subject of the article J. Delano Ellis has been declared deceased, several subjects have made known their personal affiliations via conversations held on @Jackfork:'s discussion page and upon the person at hand @Ron Wells, MDiv.:. In doing so, they have made various attempts to remove information which has been cited appropriately and referenced for the sake of "truth" and being "for the LORD Jesus Christ" in their own written words. This Wikipedia contributor had their contributions reverted by Wikipedia administrative team members and I in efforts to cease this situation, as I have explained Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the issue at hand. Nevertheless they refuse to offer any reasoning other than what may appear to be a personal conflict of interest with general public information, which can be viewed in this summary of J. Delano Ellis's article revision history. It is becoming quite tiresome to continue to revert such seemingly unhealthy behaviors, and I request immediate intervention. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The following person whom the allegations stand against has, in an effort of unknown reasoning, blanked the evidenced proposed against them via their talk page history which can be viewed here. I am again, requesting immediate intervention for the sake of preserving Wikipedia's encyclopediac ethos. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have given them a proper 3RR warning and a copyvio warning for their sandbox which was a clear copy and paste from another site. It should be noted that a user is allowed to remove information from their talk page, so TheLionHasSeen do not reinstate it if they have removed it. Removal is taken to mean they've read and understood it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Canterbury Tail:. I appreciate your assistance. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, they have begun to revert again with no explanation offered @Canterbury Tail:. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a content dispute, and you are also edit warring, you should not have reverted them. I will be blocking them for 3RR violation, but you should also consider this an edit warring warning. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually that may be harsh on you looking into the edits. They are clearly reverting referenced information just because they don't like it. Anyway they're blocked for 24 hours, next move is theirs. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful for your swift assistance and investigation of this incident. Thank you @Canterbury Tail:. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:, @Ad Orientem: a new account has done the same mobile edit and apologized. Please check the IP and temporarily protect this page. Here are the revisions. I am not going to involve myself as this is blatant suspicion, and I desire to not suffer any administrative consequences if it turns out to be them. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect sockpuppetry as newly registered editor Increaseisjoey removed almost the exact content as User:Ron Wells, MDiv did (See edit). TheLionHasSeen, that edit summary from whom I suspect to be a sock is not an apology. That is disruptive editing Jerm (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You know what, I think the easiest way to deal with this is semi-protection for a bit. The items being removed are pretty clearly referenced. I'm semied it for a month. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Per this SPI, that I started, Ron Wells and his socks are now back in the drawer. Goose^(Talk!) 15:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thought so. Guess there’s no need to keep this case open. Jerm (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

SuperGoose007, make sure they were folded neatly!! ;) - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism at Cardi B discography

Some rev/deletion requested for WP:BLP business, and since several disruptive accounts are involved, possibly page protection. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:D0BA:8243:1C8D:D9A0 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

BLP page would be more appropriate please see links at the top of the page. Games of the world (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sushant Singh Rajput spam at WP:HD / WP:TH

Background: Sushant Singh Rajput was an Indian actor who died recently. All reliable sources so far say he committed suicide, but for some reason conspiracy theorists have decided it was actually murder. As a consequence, they are spamming Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, as well as Wikipedia:Help Desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse to change the article (to say either that it was murder or that nobody knows). (Needless to say, those requests do not include any source, let alone a reliable one.) It is not a huge deal; it is averaging something like 1-2 threads per week; but it is a bit annoying.

I do not think there is much to be done about the article talk page: we probably cannot put an edit filter without an absurdly high rate of false positives, and (semi-)protecting a talk page is probably too harsh. The help forums are a different beast, though; every single hit for "sushant singh rajput" is that kind of spam (Help Desk archive search, Teahouse).

What are the options here? I assume edit filter: would that be justified, what would be the settings? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember, all edit filters affect every edit to the site. i doubt very much that would would be justified for this. In addition, regulars at the Teahouse and the Help desk deal with lots of people wanting unjustified changes to various articles and drafts, this is not significantly different. I see no need for any special protection measures here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The talk page has actually had to be semi'd in the recent past; the flood of edit requests is because it came off of semi. We've actually thrashed out an FAQ on the matter and put it as the top section of the article talk page (nobody seems to be reading it) and we're starting to get persistent users who won't read the FAQ or drop the subject on the talk page, so I foresee a re-protection in the near future unless something changes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The short answer to posts at WP:HD and WP:TD is: Wrong venue, content issue, post thataway at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (Where you can expect your spamming proposal to be speedily declined, and perhaps that a CU will see a justified reason to have a close look at your account.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

CU won't help here since the vast majority of these are drive-bys. (We did have a sockmaster in the topic area, but they seem to have ceased for the most part.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 22:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishtunishaa and all things Sushant Singh Rajput

Articles related to Sushant Singh Rajput including related talk pages have for months been the subject of campaigns to influence Wikipedia to change the |death_cause= parameter of the infobox. Shortest possibly explanation: Subject was an Indian actor. He was found hanging from a ceiling fan, dead. The Mumbai police employed medical examiners to evaluate the situation. They determined it to be a "clear case of suicide".[272] Since then, the family filed a report accusing another actor of abetment to suicide (not murder), and criticised the Mumbai police's investigation, so it got bumped to a CBI case.

Since then, there has been an ongoing social media campaign to influence Wikipedia to change the "suicide by hanging" determination to "mystery" or "under investigation" or "murder" or any variation of these labels. (I can't link to Twitter searches without triggering protection filters, so I won't. But searching for "Sushant Singh Rajput Wikipedia" and clicking "Latest" will give you some idea of what's happening.

TL;DR: As for Nishtunishaa, they edited a few times in 2016, and now they're back with a taste for SSR justice. Most recent edits: "Hello what the hell is going on...can Wikipedia change to under investigation...boss truth can never hide and we are not blind. Or else we will request Our pm Modiji to ban Wikipedia in India" "Sushant singh Rajput was murdered on 13th June night and the case is under investigation. I request you to change the Death to "Under Investigation" "Cause of death is Murder not suicide" and then after contacting them on their talk page to explain why the article says what it says here, they inserted two more pissy responses about "fake information" and accusing the encyclopedia of supporting terrorists.

So, Remedy #1": Editor Nishtunishaa is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and I think their privileges should be pulled.

I would also hope that other administrative eyes could be directed to this article subject.

We've tried educating SPAs and out-of-retirement accounts like Nishtunishaa about community policy, we've crafted a FAQ on that talk page, but these accounts just keep dropping by for political shots, totally ignoring stuff like FAQs. (I don't even know how mobile editors find talk pages, since the mobile interface is so piss-poor, but still they come!) It's very disruptive at this point, and I know that Jéské Couriano filed a talk page protection request here, so I consider that Remedy #2. While it's not preferable to semi-protect talk pages, when there are active social media campaigns to influence the content that Wikipedia has, I think Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput should probably be semied until the CBI releases their final determination, whenever that is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note until and unless investigation is not over you cannot write suicide by hanging. Please note CBI is investigating the case so the cause of death must be either unknown or under investigation...in case of sushant Singh Rajput... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We have sources that say the death was a suicide and that Chakraborty's being made for abetment of suicide. We go with what the sources say (especially because biographical protections still apply. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I would request Wikipedia to please go through electronic evidence and wait for their judgement and put cause of death in Sushant Singh Rajput case as under investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't do that. We're an encyclopaedia; we rely on what credible secondary sources say, and so far they're of one mind that it is suicide. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

And a random doctor who's armchair-gumshoe'ing on Twitter is not a reliable source for this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

For your information, Subramanian Swamy is an Indian Member of Parliament. Just thought I'd point that out though it only implies that even prominent politicians are involved in spreading unconfirmed theories. 45.251.33.88 (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, wouldn't threatening to get Wikipedia banned in India amount to trying to initiate legal action? It's almost like a legal threat. 45.251.33.88 (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, no. But it's still a very clear sign that they're not here to actually discuss the article other than the same demands drive-by accounts have been making. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I request you to please look into the petition signed on change...the entire world knows it was murder but we all want CBI bring you out the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The change.org petition is irrelevant. Provide a credible source or stop pressing the issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are talking lies and you believe in lies. Truth is he was murdered... please put cause of death as under investigation please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I heavily doubt Hindustan Times, the BBC, Reuters, or Mumbai Mirror would deliberately print a bullshit story that would draw a libel lawsuit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Preparing for my interview... My debate in reference to cause of death ends here .. Hope you will do the needful...and stop supporting sources are talking lies Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We're not changing it unless we see a credible secondary source. You have been told this and asked point-blank to provide one; your responce is to resort to ad hominem attacks against sources no reasonable person would consider unreliable. If this is an attempt to browbeat us into violating several site policies, it will fail. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nishtunishaa: I'm very sorry if you were led to believe that this is the place to discuss the facts of the Sushant Singh Rajput death. It is not. We're here to discuss your behaviour. You came out of a long stasis to rant about your beliefs about Rajput's death, which you failed to substantiate. You were told to read the FAQ, you vandalised other editors' comments, you were asked to read the talk page FAQ but apparently didn't do so, and now you're again harping here about the case instead of observing that your behaviour is disruptive. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you're here to push an agenda. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for not being here to build an encyclopedia. All their recent edits showed a stubborn resistance to this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Participation in this ongoing wave of disruption should not be tolerated from any editor Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. Now to wait for the RPP request. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good block, Cullen328. Indeed, Nishtunishaa is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen, had you not blocked them I would have. And thanks to YMBlanter for protecting the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor keeps recreating article that has been repeatedly deleted.

Saroha_Rajgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps recreating the same article over and over again. It has already been speedily deleted several times, and he has already been warned multiple times to stop recreating this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I now see that this speedy deletion was declined. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• An ancillary issue here is that the user’s name is in clear violation of our username policy, as it’s the name of a Pakistani village (which is the subject of the article that they’re trying to create). They need a soft block for this reason alone. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Since when is using a placename as a username illegal on enwiki? And which part of Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low is difficult for you guys to understand? Quite surprising how you scurry to chase off anyone whom you perceive to be a non-native English-speaker, yet basic sentences in your own language are too much for you to process. And we wonder why enwiki has such a strong Anglo-American bias: it's because you folks don't want that to change. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of that rule. However, populated, legally recognized places can still be deleted if we can't find a source that can verify their existence. I tagged the article for speedy deletion because it had already been deleted so many times for similar reasons and had identical wording to the previous versions. I was also unaware of the link that existed in the user's sandbox. I guess I got too ahead of myself on this one. For that reason, I'll refrain from tagging any more articles until I have more knowledge of the process. However, this does not change the fact that this user is still being very disruptive despite several warnings to change their behavior. I don't doubt that they are acting in good faith, but I feel that some kind of action needs to be taken here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So then criticise him for that disruption, rather than absurd stuff like the act of creating an article on a notable place, or having a matching username. Looking at their contributions, I don't disagree with the assessment you make in your last sentence, but I most certainly will not stand for the other nonsense that has found its way into this saga. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right. It was a bad move on my part to tag the article. I shouldn't have relied so much on previous deletions even though part of me was uncertain as to whether I was doing the right thing. Had I known that the tag had been removed, I would not have posted here without consulting an administrator. The AFD is getting a lot of attention. I plan on voting keep if we can find a reliable source. In the meantime, I think I'll let the administrators deal with him. I'll try asking him if he can find sources for us if he comes back. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Manoramu and Cumulative accuracy profile

• Manoramu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cumulative accuracy profile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Cumulative accuracy profile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor User:Manoramu appears to be a single-purpose account who is trying to make some edits to Cumulative accuracy profile (a statistical concept) that have a breezy informal tone that is not encyclopedic. The edits are not wrong; they just have a tone of speaking to a high school class.

Manoramu has been reverted four times now, and has also submitted a draft of this article, which was declined as already existing, and has now been rejected as already existing. Either Extended-Confirmed Protection of the article or a partial block is probably needed to protect the tone of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A newly registered editor who mostly edited in July and one edit on Sep. 8th on Cumulative accuracy profile hasn't been given any explanation as to what they did wrong. Constantly reverting the editor isn't helping. Perhaps a personal message that explains some of the concerns of other editors would help, and of course, a list of WP:RULES. I mean this is a new editor who most likely doesn't have a clue about Wiki policy & guidelines. That should've been the first thing, at least a welcoming message with a list of policies and guidelines, not ANI. Jerm (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Article talkpages are also useful.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation

Hi, could I get some admin assistance at this article, please? I surfed in on a link and thought the POV lacked neutrality so I tidied up and added some positives. My edit was immediately reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been reverted without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but it still looks very negative to me, and the positives I added to the article last week have been reverted. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not the right forum buddy! Talk about it on its talk page. If this doesn't work, go to WP:POV noticeboard or WP:DRN. If all else fails, go to the WP:BN. This can be resolved without admin intervention. HeartGlow ^(talk) 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Attempted discussion on the talk page has already failed. I'll try the POV noticeboard. Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I'm not sure that referring someone to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard for a POV/neutrality issue is the right choice. Did you mean a different one of our alphabet soup of noticeboards? :-) ◦ Trey Maturin 18:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Supercomputing in India

I have edited and in my opinion improved the article Supercomputing in India from c. July to August 2020. The revision before my cleanup tag and changes be seen here. On 21 September 2020 my revision were reverted to the old state without much explanation by User:Mohan Rose Ali. As my changes were a clean-up I did revert this. I left a comment on why I did this on Talk:Supercomputing in India to encourage debate assuming good faith. User:Mohan Rose Ali has reverted again per this revision. You can see the edits made, the change to the actual page, and the comments on the revision. I am not happy about this for multiple reasons: (1) I did try and engage in good faith, (2) it has now disrupted the article, and (3) is what I perceive as quite an aggressive and bad faith attack directly on me. I have not edited the false accusation out yet preferring to see if I can find a neutral admin to help with this. I considered arbitration, however I have tried engaging, but I also cannot let false accusations stand. Could someone point out the best forums to deal with this please? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally I'd suggest that a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page, but Mohan Rose Ali's edit summaries and strange additions to the content smack of extreme bad faith and WP:OWNership. Mohan Rose Ali - why on earth did you add the following text to the article:

[ WARNING - MOUSE TRAP FOR CYBER ATTACKER : One Wiki-Hacker identified anonymously as 'Master Of Ninja' and listed as 'WikiProject Football Member' had collapsed the original content of this page by 32 unauthorized changes in the contents starting from 18 July 2020 up to 22 August 2020. After reverting and restoring 27 of them with 5 remaining to be re-edited as on 22.09.2020, again he made the cyber attacks on 22.09.2020 and 23.09.2020 and made 4 collapsing changes. Reverted and restored those changes too. A cyber complaint is made to trace the cyber attacker and the matter is pending with Wikipedia.org ]

What does 'A cyber complaint is made' mean? Why are you describing another editor as a hacker? Specific issues with the edits should be discussed on the article talk page, but from the look of that article's history I'm not sure that Mohan Rose Ali is competent to be editing that or any article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked them from editing Supercomputing in India. They seem to have some sort of CoI as they are adding their name to the page. See here. Remove or extend ass required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

_{Ah, the Freudian typo. Remove [...] ass required.}Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the partial block, but I'd still like to see an explanation of what on earth they thought they were doing putting stuff like that in an article; also I see the accusations of bad faith on the part of Master of Ninja as unacceptable personal attacks, unless the editor is willing to substantiate them. If they're not willing to come here and either retract those accusations or to explain themselves, I'm getting a CIR / NOTHERE vibe. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've warned them that repeat occurrences will be treated as disruptive editing and/or personal attacks. Come back if they start up with the same stuff when the partial block expires. This can probably be closed for now. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's a bit unnerving when you get quite personal attacks like that straight on the page. Although something that I think CambridgeBayWeather that I hadn't initially was that the user inserted his own name into the article. It could be that he was involved in the topic involved, although the formal citations don't seem to support that. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Twice draft-ifying an article unilaterally over objection

I recently came across a seemingly mature Draft:2021 MotoGP World Championship with 31 references and maybe a dozen different contributors. I initially posted on the draft talk page asking why was this still a draft article. I quickly realized there was no real reason that this should still be a draft, so I promoted it to article space.

Grdijk (talk · contribs) unilaterally moved it back to draft space. [273]. My comment on the draft readiness has now been relegated to a deleted version of the talk page. After a quick check of WP:DRAFTIFY which clearly states that:

"Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD."

Following this, I moved it back to mainspace and left a note on User_talk:Grdijk#Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY clearly referencing WP:DRAFTIFY and asking Gfdijk not to move pages from article to draft space outside of a deletion discussion.

This was ignored and re drafified unilaterally.[274].

I requested that the user undo the last move on their talk page[275] but no engagement.

I request this article be restored to mainspace and the draft WP:SALTED. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That entire article is a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Even just read it. 1) there's no proof it will go ahead and 2) the dates even say "Dates currently estimated based on historical dates". It deserves to be in Draft space or else nowhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That they are estimates was Grdijk's editorial comment [276].

The article clearly states "The following Grands Prix are scheduled to take place in 2021:" with sources. Discussing a significant series of events with extensive sourcing that is scheduled is not WP:CRYSTAL (per the definition), just like the 2024 Summer Olympics article is not inappropriate. Besides, this isn't a deletion discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just about every line is sourced, so not WP:CRYSTAL, and the only date in it is 2021. Grdijk's edit summary for the move states that they want to keep it in draftspace because moving the page from draft space has resulted in significant page vandalism and unsourced edits at this early stage (which doesn't make much sense as other editors were editing it when it was still in draftspace). Grdijk should have communicated with Toddst instead of move-warring, but they seem to be weak in the communication department (in 4.5 years, they've posted to a user talk page once and never to an article talk page). Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• I didnt see the article, and not discussing about current issue either. Just pointing out to notability: timeline/unscheduled events have nothing to do with notabilty. We already have articles on "hopefully it happens" (colonisation, and terraformation of Mars), projects that didnt even begin, projects that failed, projects that were created just on paper with plans for not starting the project, and hypothetical stuff like Dyson sphere. The CRYSTAL refers to (among others) predicting notability of subject. But not everything has to exist, or has to have scheduled dates to exist to achieve notability. Project Daedalus. Courtesy ping @Canterbury Tail and Toddst1: —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. I withdraw the objections above. Canterbury Tail talk 00:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Toddst1:, it looks like you can now go ahead and move it back in without issues Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

BHG

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

---

I have asked BrownHairedGirl to not message me directly, I think quite civilly. This appears to be being ignored. I was kind enough to bring her attention to a category issue, even though I fundamentally disagree with categories altogether. I decided to revert a message I wrote as although I did feel that I was being gas-lighted it was probably something I shouldn't have said out loud. I then got a message, with a threat to take me to AN/I. I’ll admit I haven't read the entire text of the message because - I’m not interested! Also, it is triggering my anxiety.

I would ask that this be reviewed and that my civil and respectful request that she not message me be respected. If an admin could please review, that would be appreciated. Unless absolutely necessary I will try to make this my only message on AN/I. I will add the notice to her talk page per policy, but that will be all. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See my post[277] on Chris's talk, where I set out why I ignored the request. If Chris had actually read the message, they'd see why I posted it ... and they could save time at ANI.

Chris needs to make up their mind: do they want non-interaction? Or do they want to troll me in multiple venues and then complain when I ask them to desist?

This is all a continuation of the saga a few months ago, where Chris caused a massive storm by emptying a category out of process, and then launched a vendetta against User:DuncanHill for challenging the disruption. I challenged that vendetta, and Chris then complained that I had "bullied" them. Oh, the irony.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] It is perhaps relevant that this request for non-interaction was left here roughly a day after Chris.sherlock initiated an interaction with BHG by leaving several snarky comments about her editing on a widely-read discussion board diff1 diff2 diff3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thats not entirely accurate. I let BHG know that there was a category issue she may want to be aware of. I take on board that some of my later comments may have come across snarky, for which I apologise. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @David Eppstein. It's highly relevant, and sadly it seems to be part of a long history of similar conduct by Chris: troll and attack others, then claim that being asked to desist is triggering their anxiety. I sympathise with Chris's mental health problems, but they would help themselves best by desisting from their pattern of manufacturing situations which cause them to get upset when asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • • Not knowing the background, I thought the first of these comments highly sensible, & indeed Bhg did join the discussion with a very useful post. After that I got puzzled. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • How about we enact a ban on Chris which prevents him from discussing BHG on talk pages, or pinging BHG in any form, including mentioning her in edit summaries. A further ban from her talk page with the sole exception of leaving required notifications may also be of benefit. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That sounds to me like a good way of giving Chris what they claim to want, but which they are unable or unwilling to implement on their own. It's is an odd situation, but maybe this is the solution. I am not asking for any sort of ban, but I would like to avoid a re-run of the absurdity of being taken to ANI for interacting with an editor who claims not to want to interact with me, but repeatedly trolls me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I am happy to take this to ArbCom if an interaction ban is what is being proposed here. I am merely asking not to be messaged. I raised the category issue as a courtesy for BHG. I haven’t asked for her to not interact with me on the rest of the wiki, merely not message me. I do feel that categories are broken and a lot of it is busy-work, and I explained why. As I say, I don’t want to say much more other than to ask that she not message me. I don’t think that is unreasonable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I can't help but feel that part of the problem stems from the fact that you "fundamentally disagree with categories altogether", which suggests that anyone involved in the work of implementing them on a large scale is going to be an annoyance to you. I myself find categories immensely useful. BD2412 T 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Thats not quite my full opinion on the matter, which is that categories are sets and that by not allowing them to be intersected, substracted or have any other set operation applied to them we risk pigeon holing people into stereotypical categories. So I don’t fundamentally oppose categories altogether, just wince when I see things like “Black women writers”, which diffusion categories don’t really address well. I also find it problematic when people who are trying to use categories are called “sneaky”, which is what BHG called that other editor, which is probably what caused the tone in my subsequent comment. However, all I am asking for here is that BHG not directly message me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
              • @Chris.sherlock This is very simple: I posted on your talk page because you were repeatedly trolling me, and I wanted you to stop. if you do not want me to post on your talk page, then do not troll me. The fact that you have such great difficulty in grasping this simple point does not bode well for your ability to function in a collaborative environment.
                As to your views on categories, you ae of course entitled to whatever views you may hold ... but you are also obliged to respect the current consensus. If you want to change categorisation policy, then feel free to open an WP:RFC to propose whatever changes you seek. I don't think you will succeed, because the problem here is that you do not understand how WP:EGRS already bans pigeonholing and has done so for nearly 15 years; but you are quite entitled to make a proposal. However, you are not entitled to go around hurling gratuitous insults and bogus allegations at editors who work within the existing consensus ... and you are certainly not entitled to then start yet another round of whining in faux-injured-innocence when you are asked politely to stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
                • I will do my best to not whine in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If Chris.sherlock wants nothing to do with BHG and doesn't want BHG to interact with them then Chris.sherlock should stop involved BHG in their conversations and interactions. Seems to me that if Chris.sherlock doesn't want the interaction then they should stop the interaction. You can't tell someone not to interact with you and then go around interacting with them the other way. Chris.sherlock if you decide to interact with BHG then it's 100% fair for them to interact back. This is all on you, so don't go dragging BHG here when you started the interactions. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s a fair comment, however you’ll notice I pinged her directly on the page where categories were being mentioned. I thought that was fairly reasonable under the circumstances, given wholesale changes to categories around women were being proposed. Perhaps I was mistaken, and I should have let consensus be made there, in much the same way as happened at AWNB. Last time that happened, two longterm editors quit. I was rather hoping that wouldn’t be the case on WP:WIRED, a project I feel passionate about. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. If you don't genuinely want to stop someone messaging you on your talk page, there is another side of the bargain to be kept which is not to keep mentioning them elsewhere (a) in a conversation which they were not a part of when you first mentioned them, and (b) leaving comments like "Those ways of editing are ridiculous". That is not unreasonable, either. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon reflection, that was indeed a needlessly inflammatory comment I made. I apologise for that. I appreciate the criticism, and take that onboard. I don’t apologise for pinging them about the category issue, given the mistake I made on AWNB around category changes and the roasting I got because of it, I was hoping to stop any changes at the pass! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock, I would be more inclined to accept your apology if it was a one-off inflammatory comment. In reality it was just one latest in a series of unnecessary inflammatory comments which you have made to me, which amount to trolling. And in reality, your trolling of me is just the latest in a series of episodes where you have acted disruptively, and where you have responded to complaints by playing the "triggering-my-anxiety" card. There seems to be a long-term pattern here of you failing to recognise either that you are behaving badly, or that the anxiety is the direct consequence of your own repeated misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The apology is given nonetheless, that comment was out of line and I am sorry for it. I had hoped that involving you early on in a category change would prevent a massive issue. I realise you think I was being disruptive for the sake of it around that last issue, and I probably will never be able to convince you otherwise, but the fact of the matter was that I had thought I had gotten consensus to make that change on WP:AWNB. History shows that I was mistaken, and it’s a pity you ascribe malice to my motives, but I was trying (and failing!) to gather consensus on a change around an Australia-related matter. I am quite serious in asking you to stop messaging me directly, but I also point out that had I not pinged you on that project talk page as a courtesy then you would not have been aware of the massive change being proposed. If you would prefer I not do that in future, say the word and I will not ping you again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock, you are making very heavy going of very simple things:

1. If you are going to apologise for gratuitous insults and bogus allegations, apologise for them all, or expect your selective apology to be rejected.
2. I have not asked you not to ping me.
3. I have no objection to be pinged by you.
4. I do want you to stop trolling me by making gratuitous insults and bogus allegations
5. If you or anyone else engages in such trolling, I will post on your talk to ask you to stop.
6. If have not asked for any limit to interaction with you.
7. If you want to limit interaction with me, then stop trolling me

You are engaged in time-wasting drama-mongering. Enough long ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not gone out of my way to troll you, but I definitely apologise for any hurt illspoken and inflammatory comments I have made has caused you. I do ask you to stop messaging me directly. I’m assuming you are not upset I pinged you as a courtesy to let you know about the major planned category changes, however I will keep any pinging of you to a bare minimum in future. As I say, please stop messaging me in future. Peace. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, if you do not recognise how your repeated unprovoked personal attacks amount to trolling, then it is likely that the problem will recur. If it does, then I will post on your talk to ask you stop.

So this is entirely within your control. However, your failure to read and understand my comment #2 "I have no objection to be pinged by you" does not bode well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I might have confused things a little. I have made a decision, based on the comments of a few people here, to limit pinging you. I have not gone out of my way to troll you, but I can see how some of the comments I have made in the past might have led you to that conclusion. My apology is given freely for this, and I understand if you do not wish to accept it. I will try not to cause you pain by my actions in future. If my apology is insufficient and you have specific examples of my actions you would like me to apologise for, I would be happy to review them and make amends. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you can make amends in the following ways:

1. Stop trolling. Learn how you are a troll, and work to cut it out entirely.
2. Drop all your vendettas against the many editors who have worked to contain and revert your disruption
3. Stop commenting when you have nothing of value to say. Learn to identify when you do and do not add value.
4. Stop whining when you are told you have screwed up.
5. Sop using your mental health issues as shield.
6. And above all, stop creating drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I apologise for the wrongs I have done to you, I am deeply hurt you use my mental health against me, and I am hurt that you would call me a whiner. I would respectfully ask you to not make personal comments of this nature against me, it is extremely unkind.

Comments such as this one are why I do not want you to message me directly. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you continue to invert the facts: you are using your mental health problems as a weapon against others. You troll and attack, and when asked to stop being disruptive you invoke your mental health as a shield. This is nasty, manipulative conduct.

You invoked your mental health as a weapon in the post which opens this ANI thread.[278] That was your choice, and if you don't like being called out on that, stop doing it. I used the word whine to describe your pattern of making big dramas to complain about the fact that others stand up to your hostile actions. If you don't like being called a whiner, then stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(a general thought) For a long time, I've been bothered by the fact that editor A can ask editor B to refrain from posting on their talk page (and expect the request to be honoured), while still feeling free to interact with, ping or sometimes even post on the user talk page of editor B. Maybe the text at Wikipedia:NOBAN could include this concern (but as often I won't be the one to raise it there). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruption hatted. --Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry but BHG, point 5 is way out of line in your last post. Whether you genuinely feel that way about other users or not, you cannot in any case say that. If I was you I would redact that whole rant and apologise to Chris and the community. Games of the world (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) I propose an IBAN as neither of BHG or Chris seem to want to be civil to each other or recognise that, although one does not want to interact, there maybe instances where a message or a ping is needed. BHG did absolutely no favours in her distasteful response to an apparent headsup ping/I'm not sure what it was and frankly don't care, on Chris' talk page. Just end the drama and have an Iban. Games of the world (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC) I have apologised to BHG and am trying to make amends. If an IBAN is to be enforced, I would request that it be taken to ArbCom first. My preferred approach would be that I not be messaged by BHG. Can I say, however, that I appreciate you stepping in Games if the world, and thank you for your level headedness. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world, your have chosen to make a negative judgement on me without taking a few moments to examine the facts. That is not a constructive approach. I do not object to being pinged. On the contrary, the ping was helpful. I did not make a distasteful response to an apparent headsup ping. The problem is that after I provided my substantive input as requested, Chris then responded to it with a series of unprovoked personal attacks:[279],[280],[281]. I posted on Chris's talk asking them to stop,[282] and pointed out that Chris had previously followed me to another venue to make an unprovoked personal attack.[283] Chris's response to being asked to stop this was to come to ANI and accuse me of triggering their anxiety.[284] This a repeated pattern in Chris's conduct: troll and attack, then invoke their mental health problems as a shield. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) None of those comments required the sarcastic and bombastic personal attack response that you posted on his page. One of those is a request for you to get involved (depending on your sensitivity scarasticly?), one was about perfection (again not nasty but certainly displaying needle between the pair of you) and the third was after you got into it, so I'm not going to comment on it but again no PA. Either way none of them justify your response. Games of the world (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world: I think you are overlooking the main trigger of BHG's talk page message. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Somehow I don't think I am to be fair, since BHG hasn't seen fit to mention it at any point and in her post that was discussed above she never mentioned it. Either way I don't care enough to look into that big time to understand it. But in isolation, Chris shouldn't have said that and by the looks wasn't justified. Games of the world (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Sigh. @Games of the world, that is simply untrue. That post by Chris (a bogus allegation of gaslighting) was what the reason I posted[285] to Chris's talk, and my post makes it very clear that it was the reason. In my first reply to this ANI thread, I linked to that post after the first three words. So your assertion that BHG hasn't seen fit to mention it at any point is plainly false. Similarly, I call bullshit on your claim that you don't care enough to look into that big time to understand it. You care enough to have posted umpteen times to this thread to attack me, and you care enough to call for me to be indef-banned. You care enough ti attack, but you do not enough to check your facts. The fact that you haven't even read the post by me which caused Chris to come to ANI seems to me to be highly persuasive evidence that you too are a troll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC) There is the real BHG. I'm done here - obviously doesn't want to change her behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC) I absolutely will not change my deep contempt for behaviour like that of GOTW, who made numerous adverse comments about another editor, and even called for an indef-ban ... but refuses to even read the most fundamental piece of evidence. Nasty, nasty trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) You can call people all the names you like. Your accusations are baseless and your behaviour will not be tolerated. That last comment just proves you can't leave people alone. Games of the world (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC) GOTW, enough already of your baiting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: Pings should be, and AFAIK generally are treated the same as talk page mentions. If someone asks you to stop pinging them then to it or risk being blocked. I'm sure I've said this before but while it is possible to block pings from editors via settings, this should never be necessary except if you think it's a better way to deal with the problem. Editors needs to respect each other not to violate such simply requests.

As for user A posting to B's talk page or pinging them when they've forbidden B to post on theirs or ping them, I don't see why editor's cannot manage this themselves. If it gets too annoying, they too are free to ban the other editor. Some editors may prefer to leave that flow open in the hope it resolves whatever problems lead up to the ban. Okay it gets slightly complicated with admins but let's put that aside. Of course if it crosses a line, they are also free to open an AN//I thread even without a ban.

As for mentions outside the talk page or pings, that's more complicated. Remember user A banning user B from posting on A's talk page doesn't stop B from posting whatever they want about A elsewhere either. It may be taken onboard in any ANI thread, but so will A posting too much about B. I agree such a talk page ban does mean A should minimise mention of B elsewhere but it's not always that clear cut. As I mentioned below, as long as editors are interacting via editing, then there may be some need for discussion of the edits, which can take place on the relevant page talk page as always. Likewise discussions over proposals etc. Again if editors abuse this, we will need to deal with it at ANI//I. On that token, with talk pages bans behavioural issues can't really be addressed, unfortunately these too need to be dealt with at AN//I. The community should take on board the lack of an attempt to address it with the editor is because it wasn't possible.

All this is IMO still the best solution since talk pages and pings are intended primarily to communicate with the editor directly but if the editor doesn't welcome such communication, indeed is going to ignore it, what's the point?

Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, you are missing the point. I have not objected to being pinged. On the contrary, Chris's ping was helpful.
I did not seek any engagement with Chris, but have been repeatedly subjected to trolling and personal attacks by Chris, at two venues. So after the latest round, I made one post[286] to Chris's talk, asking them to stop. I believe that is in accordance with WP:NOBAN, as a preliminary step to taking the issue to a noticeboard. Having trolled me, Chris chose to completely ignore the substance of my request that they desist (they explicitly said in their opening post her at ANI that they were not interested in reading it) ... but used my request to stop trolling as the basis of an ANI complaint against me. This is classic troll conduct: repeatedly bait me, then complain that they were asked to stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can't you both please just walk away? I really don't want to see decent people slapped with IBANS and the like. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Is it really that difficult to ignore each other, stop the pinging and messaging. Don't even mention each others user name in a discussion. That's it, done, problem resolved, now can someone close this. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• This entire thread opened by Chris.sherlock is nothing more than trolling. After claiming in the OP that the OP would be his only post to the thread, he went on to make 11 (and counting) more posts; falsely claiming victimhood, making faux apologies, and other classic troll tactics, all to do nothing more than endlessly waste the community's time. It's time to put a stop to this. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• As always, BHG needs to stop posting on Chris.sherlock's talk page, except for compulsory notifications. They've been asked to stop and there is no benefit to posting on Chris.sherlock's page if Chris.sherlock is just going to ignore need. If BHG feels Chris.sherlock's editing is a problem e.g. NPA violations, they should bring it to a relevant AN. The community will take on board the reason for a lack of any attempt to address the problem with Chris.sherlock first is because it's not possible since Chris.sherlock has rejected it. Chris.sherlock needs to stop pinging BHG. It's not clear to me if they were specifically asked to stop but it's clearly unwelcome. Violating of these simple requests is from either party is WP:harassment and should be met with indefinite blocks. (Remembering indefinite is not forever.) Chris.sherlock should also minimise mention of BHG. It needs to be completely relevant to what they're discussing and should not be needling etc. If Chris.sherlock keeps bringing up BHG unnecessarily, this can be brought to ANI and an interaction ban considered. It's possible that this is already justified, the fact that BHG is also needling Chris.sherlock by posting to their talk page when asked not to means I say we let it be for now. This is a somewhat more complicated issue since while it's well accepted that posting to someone's talk page or pinging when they've asked you not to is harassment, as long as editors are interacting elsewhere some minimal mention of the other party or especially their actions may be required. E.g. if you revert a change and can't post on the page talk page 'I reverted this change because', there's a problem. Bringing up BHG to make some point when their actions aren't directly involved will likely be needling which can lead to an iban, or worse. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne, that's a strangely couterfactual narrative that you imposed on these events. I posted once on Chris's talk to ask them to stop trolling. That is not in any sense me harassing or needling Chris ... and it is sad to see you trying to construct an equivalence between the troll and the editor who asks the troll to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris Sherlock has announced that he has scrambled his password. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

And a load of users failed to cover themselves in glory in this thread and look very bad indeed. Games of the world (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You are one of them. Lev!vich 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely uncalled for Games of the world (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can say the same thing about your comment Games of the world. Jerm (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the history here, IMO the proposal should nevertheless be allowed to run its course. Lev!vich 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess one needs to block indef (and in case this is impersonation to require a talk page confirmation), but I do not see any appropriate criterion in the dropdown menu. Do we have any precedents?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Password scrambling does not prevent one from signing in; that's why we have the "Forgot your password?" feature on the log in page. Any community sanction should be applied to the account whether he has changed his password or not. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And considering Chris's last userpage blank was nearly exactly a month ago, it's not exactly a fringe idea to think this may be temporary. Vermont (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: One-way IBAN on Chris.sherlock concerning BrownHairedGirl

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

---

This would seem to solve the entirety of the problem, since (even by his own admission) Chris.sherlock seems to be the one instigating the mentions and interactions. Chris.sherlock has threatened to take this to ArbCom, and I daresay this would be the result (at the very least; he might also get a TBAN from Categories), so let's just enact it now, since he doesn't seem to want to WP:DROPTHESTICK or stop trolling or mentioning BrownHairedGirl. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Let's get this over with. Jerm (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Chris has a lot of serious problems. He admits it. This restriction would put to an end the specific problem that has flared up recently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Call it needling. Call it obtuseness. Harassment? Whatever. You cannot ping or otherwise engage an editor (with whom you have had problems already) and then complain at ANI about them responding. The TBAN on categories is not a bad idea either. I was going to post earlier, but thought the stick had been dropped. OK. Furthermore, ArbCom is for when the Community has not addressed a problem. This community solution addresses the root cause of this problrm. One can only speculate as to how they would perceive this poking and then running to ANI when BHG responds to being poked, but they are not stupid. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've not followed this, but am I correct that Chris started this thread, and then claimed their interactions with the subject of their IBAN were affecting their mental health after opinions in this thread went aganst them, so they left and scrambled their password so as to call it quits with Wikipedia? I submit that it would perhaps be better to just avoid people they find irksome and stop dragging them off to noticeboards. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  BHG's post in response to Rhododendrites' post reinforces my impression of Chris.sherlock actually trying to provoke a response from BHG. I think the IBAN is a good idea, assuming Chris.sherlock eventually returns. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In full agreement with Boing! in that the IBAN needs to be placed. I will point out that it is the person that is IBANned, regardless of user name de jour, and it will be in force when Chris comes back under a new user name. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

• Support including pings and edit summary mentions per my post above. Mjroots (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support this will probably solve the issue at hand. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• comment Just to make it clear for Chris (so that we don't have a flair up in 2 minutes) this IBAN is not specifically about not posting on each others talk pages, as both seem to be leaving each other alone in that sense since April until a couple of days back, or pinging where needed. It is about going on to a page/discussion where the other one is leaving each other alone and only discussing the content. If Chris cannot abide by the above then I would say that he needs to think about a self imposed ban from discussing categories being the better solution. BHG needs to find a better way to deal with him instead of providing ammo for flair ups. Break the cycle BHG, rip the playbook up and disrupt his behaviour if he is as others have put "poking you," don't keep playing into his playbook. Both parties need to take time reflect on their own behaviour and how to change the cycle. Games of the world (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. The terms of an IBAN are very clear: WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • To clarify what I meant is you are already doing some of the IBAN rules. I would say a no fault interaction ban two way would be better. BHG seems to like to get into it with him, neither seem to want to leave alone. Wouldn't want a flair up to start over some random comment she made. Would prefer a belts and braces approach here. Games of the world (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Nonsense, @Games of the world. I don't like this at all. On the contrary, I loathe this; dealing with a troll who demonstrates no self-awareness is the worst part of Wikipedia. I took great care to minimise my responses to Chris's repeated trolling at two separate venues, tried a lightweight direct request to stop rather than escalating to ANI ... and have still had to deal with the timesink of this ANI thread with its manipulative basis in Chris's claim that I am somehow responsible for the fact that his repeated trolling has triggered his mental issues. And on top of that, I have you piling in to manufacture falsehoods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all the above as well as the ancient principle of "duh." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive content hatted. ~ Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal: Brown Haired Girl to be indef banned until she apologises for the uncivil and personal attack comments in this thread 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. Yesterday BHG made a series of personal attack comments in her post at 20:12, 22 September 2020. Including accusing a user of using mental health as a shield. It is that point imparticularly that is completely unacceptable, I requested that she apologised and struck the comment, she turn around and replied to me that "[I] have chosen to make a negative judgement on me without taking a few moments to examine the facts. That is not a constructive approach." BHG needs to be banned until she recognises that if she made that comment at work she would be very lucky to still have a job and that comments like that are completely out of line and apologises for her actions. Games of the world (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Oppose and WP:SNOW close. That wasn't an attack, it was an assertion or an allegation. And this thread is not the first time Chris.sherlock has used this route of claiming internal distress over things that were either inconsequential or clearly precipitated by his own actions. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world: I absolutely definitely will not in any way retract that comment. The facts are that Chris: repeatedly trolled me ignored the substance of my request [287] that they stop trolling Came to ANI to make a complaint about being asked to stop trolling Chose to use their metal health issues as leverage by complaining that my request to stop trolling was triggering their anxiety[288] That is why I repeat: Chris is using their mental health issues as a shield for their sustained trolling. This is manipulative behaviour. I cannot know whether it is consciously manipulative, but its effect is to smear me as causing damage to Chris's mental health simply by asking them to stop trolling. Anyone dismissed from employment for complaining about such manipulation would win a case for unfair dismissal, probably with aggravated damages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC) BHG point 4 is he did state that, but it is completely unacceptable for you to attack him by saying that he is using it as a shield. Whatever your opinion it does not give you the right to say what you said and refuse to withdraw it and apologise. SoftLavender I'm disappointed by your snow response, it's not a very objective comment to say on a serious issue. In addition I work in this environment and that was certainly not an allegation or assumption (my view I know not everyone will agree and vise versa and that's OK). BHG's reply shows that she needs a time out. Games of the world (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world, I stated it because it is true. I will not apologise for that. I have no idea why you choose to try to seek a ban on me for accurately describing the manipulative conduct of a troll, but the effect of your stance is to try to punish me for being the target of a troll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Games of the world, you've already been blocked twice in your short wiki career [289], the first time (one month in length) was for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy". This subthread and your repeatedly doubling down on it (both in this subthread and the main thread) are approaching a near-hysteria level of targeted attacks, so I would advise you to close and withdraw this subthread if you want to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG (block or other sanction). Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Drop the attitude, my behaviour has nothing to do with this and a boomerang block is disgusting to start throwing at innocent people. This it is not a targeted attack, this is a serious issue that MUST be dealt with in the appropriate way ignoring it is not acceptable. Games of the world (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2020 (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.

• Support as proposed. There is more than enough to be done around Wikipedia to keep this editor busy without being almost gravitationally drawn to conflict with others. BD2412 T 20:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note: As pointed out above, Chris Sherlock has announced that he has scrambled his password. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can say anything about their own account, it doesn't mean it's true or entirely accurate. If Chris has an email, a simple click on "Forgot password" and done, new password received. Anyway, I think this proposal should continue. Jerm (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

He said it was a protest, so I think if either he feels better or if there was a policy change he would come back. I think the indef comment above is harsh, why does a self voluntary leave end up in a user having to beg/justify to come back. Agree with Jerm and others if people feel that a belt and braces approach is the best then this proposal should continue. Games of the world (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just passing by, but, I thought the point of the "password scrambling" declaration was to make the account unrecoverable? I've seen this on other sites where they mash random keys, copy and paste it into the "confirm new password" box, logout, clear cookies, and that's that. Maybe a final step has to be to delete the recovery email attachment, too. Zaathras (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone announces their intentions doesn't make it true. Jerm (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How many times has he quit now, and from how many accounts? I've lost count. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support If you want limited interaction with somebody, don’t talk about them or otherwise engage with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support As with a month ago, a content dispute resulted in incivility, accusations onwiki, and harsher accusations off-wiki. This IBAN would hopefully help prevent future occurences of similar issues; if it doesn't, other sanctions can be explored which would. Vermont (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Saw this at WT:WIR and just noticed this thread. This seems on its way to being closed, but just an observation that seems not to have been made yet (or maybe it's just taken for granted): My read of Chris's ping to BHG was something of an olive branch. I've been in that position before, where I've been in an argument with someone and later, after some times has gone by, one of us reaches out to the other for input. It's partly a genuine request for input, but it's also showing that despite a particular argument, there's still respect there. Someone was talking about categories, and BHG is extremely knowledgeable about categories, so it was a good opportunity. But BHG responded to Chris's ping with an elaborate list of grievances against Ser Amantio. I've no opinion about whether those objections have merit, but if I were Chris I would feel, at minimum, regret for accidentally inviting that level of conflict/criticism to a thread that was otherwise simple and positive. It would be understandable to feel responsible for a third party facing that kind of attack (again, no idea if it had merit), and to not know what to do with that anxiety (I think we would all feel at least some level of discomfort/anxiety in that situation). Perhaps compounded by past interactions, Chris blundered some snark and then opened this thread. Both bad moves. He then tried multiple times to apologize, but was not let off the hook because the apologies were not all-encompassing admissions to outright trolling. I'm not sure that's reasonable here, but I also haven't dug into any past interactions (which is why I'm abstaining from !voting, but I certainly wouldn't be supporting based just on this exchange).
  Chris may have scrambled his password, but he can come back at any time, and I hope he does. If/when that happens, regardless of an iban (which seems likely at this point), remember this experience. Remember that there are people and subjects that really rub you the wrong way (which is normal) and just try to avoid them. In this case, it should be easy. You don't like categories and BHG is really into categories, so you two shouldn't intersect all that often. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, we cannot get along with everyone, so best to avoid people that rub us the wrong way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The "olive branch" interpretation is mind-reading. What's at issue is what actually happened, and to get the entire picture you need to read the entire conversation (before Chris.sherlock reverted himself): [290], (and BHG's entire comment on his talkpage: [291], which you appear to have already read). -- Softlavender (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: despite the nastiness of my previous encounter with Chris in April, and his repeated trolling of me in August, I thought that his ping might be well-intended, so I AGFed and saw that it was a thread where I could offer substantive input. So I did make that contribution. Unfortunately it was mostly negative, because there are some truly huge, longstanding problems which need resolving. (I am currently working on documenting some of it for further action). I wish it were otherwise, but this really is a big problem.
    Unfortunately, Chris as usual showed little grasp of the substance of the issues at stake (he has a pattern of weighing in categorisation issues which he doesn't understand, and then starting a storm when corrected). Instead he posted escalating levels of valueless snark, starting with this[292] ... and escalated until he posted a very nasty and wholly unjustified comment, which he later reverted. At that point, I wondered if I had mistaken to AGF about the ping, and if Chris's aim all along had been to draw me to a place where he could snipe ... but since I had already reopened a big unresolved issue, I didn't want to back out of the thread.
    So I considered ANI, but reckoned a private post was probably a better path to de-escalation, so I tried a private post to his talk. At which point Chris decided to play the victim card and come to ANI to complain of being harassed in a way which triggered his anxieties ... which of course was entirely a consequence of hos own trolling.
    Now, some new evidence. In reviewing Chris's contribs to find a diff, I stumbled across this set of 16 contributions to CFD in late August by Chris, in response to a series of groups nominations I had made of WP:SMALLCATs for Australian geography. The contribs are all near-identical, and all consist of near-identical ill-founded snark: e.g. in relation to the set "Suburbs of Brisbane smallcats", Chris posted [293] lol the nominator said that Australia is "tiny"!. Actually, what I wrote in the nomination[294] was Each of these 29 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Brisbane, Australia is tiny. Chris took my words out of context to make a childishly simplistic misrepresentation of my statement... and he did it multiple times. I didn't see this until today, because Chris incompetently posted after the threads had been relisted on another page. But the intent is very clearly trolling: Chris rarely if ever posts at CFD, and seems to have pitched up solely to snipe at me. This was only 6 days after Chris posted at AN solely to snipe at me[295][296].
    Since Chris has been trolling me at three different venues, it now looks a lot like he has been stalking me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • PS I just checked Chris's record of posting at CFD, by loading his whole contribs into AWB and filtering for "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion". The result is that set of 16 contributions to CFD in late August by Chris, all to CFD 2020 July 19, are Chris's only contribs to CFD under this account. That reinforces the impression that this was stalking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It's certainly hard to look at this evidence any other way. I still read Chris's initial WiR post as a good faith gesture gone wrong (which is not to excuse the subsequent comments), but there's no excuse for these various pokes. I was going to suggest simply a tban from categories, being a subject that he admits he doesn't care about, but maybe an iban is necessary. Still, it seems like the sort of iban that, if he does create a new account, could be revisited after a period of productive editing, and I have faith Chris could do that without incident. We'll see if he decides to come back, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Rhododendrites, I think you should take a look at Chris.sherlock's highly contested unblock poll on AN from last September [297]. Among the Oppose !votes was this by Iridescent: Conditional oppose unless there are specific, written, agreements that any editor can order him to stay off their talkpage and failure to do so will result in an immediate and indefinite block, and that any admin can impose a full interaction ban between him and any other editor if they consider it justified and failure to comply with it will result in an immediate and indefinite block. Yes, I'm familiar with the background here, but regardless of the circumstances this editor rightfully earned a well-deserved reputation as a vicious and aggressive bully (much of the history has been hidden owing to the out-of-process deletion of his talk page, but see the most recent entries at Special:Contributions/Tbsdy lives, for instance), and regardless of how much he's changed it's not reasonable to expect anyone who had dealings with his previous incarnations to be forced to interact with him against their will. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - If you don't want to interact with someone then maybe don't ping them ?, Anyway this solution should hopefully bring an end to the nonsense BHG has had to put up with. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Request that it is made explicit that the IBAN applies to the person whatever account or accounts he may be using, not just the Chris.sherlock one. He has a history of reappearing with new accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this is like a runaway train. I have seen Chris.sherlock on the project and they are pleasant. Even in this thread they are appropriate and apologetic. There was an immediate attempt to take BHG's side in this incident report. BHG has been around on the project, and has been known to be abrupt (See arbcom). Chris.sherlock erred in coming here for help obviously - (his block log is clear). To the editors assigning motives (drama) to Chris.sherlock regarding the report ...I say that is incorrect based on my reading. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: his block log is clear?!—until this time last year, he was indefinitely blocked. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:200A:60C5:94E2:305E (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's notable that @Reaper Eternal's close of that unblock request included a note to encourage Chris to take things slowly and not pursue any grudges.
  Sadly, what happened here is that Chris pursued a grudge against me, by trolling me across three venues ... and then came to ANI to complain that my request for him to desist from his grudge-driven trolling was triggering his anxiety. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) I do not see any scope to reasonably construct the narrative which Lightburst has tried to impose on the facts of this case, which are relatively simple.

Chris trolled me at three separate venues:

1. WP:AN: [298], [299]
2. WP:CFD July 19: 16 posts, all sniping at BHG. That sniping is the only contribution he has ever made to CFD from his present account
3. pinging me[300] to WT:WOMRED, which was of itself helpful ... but having lured me there, he responded in escalating levels of snark: [301], [302], [303] until he finally posted a nasty smear[304], which he reverted[305] eight minutes later, but of course remains in the history

I then posted to Chris's talk[306], to ask him to desist.

Chris reverted[307] that post with the edit summary what part of “leave me alone” don’t you understand?

Having trolled me at three venues, Chris' “leave me alone” plea was patent nonsense.

Chris then opened this discussion at ANI[308], and three minutes later Chris amended[309] his opening post with a complaint that the situation is is triggering my anxiety ... even though the trigger had been pulled only by Chris himself — not once, but three times.

Other editors posting in this thread have responded to those facts. Lightburst appears aggrieved by that focus on facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware of his block log. I carelessly did not see the log. In light of the editors apologetic tone this all seems too fast and furious. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance, it appears this is moot because Chris has announced he's left. No sense issuing an IBAN against someone who is gone. However, anyone who has been on en.wikipedia for a while will recognize this is a pattern with him: for the last 15 (or so) years, something happens with him, he announces he's leaving for good...only to reappear a few months or a few years later. He'll behave well for a while, even be a model contributor, only to encounter another kind of issue & repeat this behavior. (And when he returns, he may leave BHG entirely alone only to involve someone else in his meltdown.) I don't know what the solution is for this -- in a perfect world with all the resources we could use, someone could reach out to Chris (or his GP or therapist) & convince him to either stop this cycling or stay away from Wikipedia -- but this IBAN at best is a bandage on a serious wound. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @llywrch, it certainly is a cycle. I seem to be his current target, but before me it was @DuncanHill. I came into frame because I defended Duncan when Chris was hounding Duncan back in April. I suspect that this ANI thread will provide him with several new targets
    We are never going to be in a situation where en.wp has the resources to do real-world reach-out, and in any case I would find such engagement scarily meddlesome. Regardless of how well-intentioned any such intervention mechanism might be, there is a huge risk of either unintended adverse consequences or abuse of the mechanism.
    So I hope that en.wp never goes down path. I think it's much better to simply uphold our own standards of conduct, and to point any troubled editor to WP:STANDARDOFFER, saying something like "good luck, and come back later if and when you can conduct yourself accordance with our standards". Our sympathy for the personal difficulties of a troubled individual should not lure us into allowing them to continue to do damage to others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Llywrch: Given that his hounding of BHG followed from her defence of me, I think we can be confident that he'll continue it even after ten years and half-a-dozen accounts. We need to make it clear that any sanction will apply not just to the current account but to any and all others he may use from time-to-time. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per all the above, rage-quit or not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think it would be best for all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, under his various past accounts (listed below), Chris.sherlock has quit Wikipedia and scrambled his password multiple times - the earliest I know about was in 2005, and the shortest lasted just four hours. The current quit should not derail this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Especially given the taking their ball and going home reaction. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's worth noting that Chris.sherlock has had several previous accounts, so the fact that he has scrambled his password on this one does not necessarily mean we won't see him on Wikipedia again.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Sept 2019 unblock request mentions the following other accounts:

• User:Chris.Sherlock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Letsbefiends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Ta bu shi da yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Tbsdy lives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The unblock request says There are no other accounts... but it also says I am unlikely to do very much except perhaps the odd spelling error, which has definitely not been the case. So I dunno how much weight to give the assurance about no other accounts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Here he is in 2016 saying he left for good in 2012, and we can't block him. "You are a serious jerk. I really think you quite enjoyed it, given that I had left for good and remain that way. Ah well, at least I can tell you what I think of you, what are they going to do, block me? Muhahaha! You can't block a person who has left for good. So stick that in your hat and smoke it, you incredible jerk :-) Now, go report me to WP:AN/I like a good little editor." diff. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

So he already has history of being disruptive and supposedly leaving Wikipedia. Should we just skip the IBAN and go straight to an indeff block? The editor is just going to comeback under a different account. We can enact an IBAN, but Chris is probably going to cause another issue with someone else. Jerm (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I'm sad to support this, as Chris Sherlock is an old wikifriend of mine, from many usernames since. But a one-way IBAN from BHG seems to make sense, certainly at this time. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC).
•  Comment: Crikey. 😯 All this discussion for one problematic user. What a drain on the resources of the entire editing community. Cnbrb (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

How on earth did this slip by?

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 know there might be some debate to be had about a lot of userboxes, but I seriously was not expecting to find ones that were literally pro-Hitler. How on earth did we get to that point? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 19:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it as G10 which is probably a stretch. Any administrator may restore if they wish without checking with me, though in this case I would expect it to end up at MfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

How did it happen? Honestly, not every userbox is looked at as closely as articles. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Good delete. No Nazis. GiantSnowman 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) We got to that point by trying to be a social media site rather than by concentrating on the task at hand, which is to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I saw the wrong page but I don't see how "Adolf Hitler should be viewed in a non-bias point of view as just another mad man who ruled a nation" is "literally pro-Hitler" or a G10 candidate (is this a Nazi dog whistle I'm unfamiliar with?). I'm sure Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FerrousTigrus/ub/non-bias hitler would have resulted in delete anyway, though, so the deletion I think is fine on snow or iar grounds. Lev!vich 19:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Was the word "mad" in there? I read "as a man who ruled a nation". Maybe not quite so clear-cut, then, but... still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 19:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "mad" was there. It's an insult to people with poor mental health. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam: If it had said "just another man" I'd agree with the G10, but I think it said "just another mad man". I read it as a version of the old argument about who was worse, Stalin or Hitler; those who say Stalin are not pro-Hitler; saying "Hitler wasn't the worst" isn't really pro-Hitler in my book. Lev!vich 19:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept that there's any mileage in comparing the "big three" dictators (Hitler, Stalin and Mao) of the twentieth century. Each of them was responsible for many millions of deaths, and in this context, a few million any way does not make any of them people you would want to invite to tea. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree there's no mileage in it but people do it anyway. Wikipedia got some mileage out of it: Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism Lev!vich 20:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that madman is not much in the way of praise. If I'm being honest, I'm more concerned about the second UBX on the MfD created by a now blocked user which states, literally, this user is a third positionist. A neo-fascist, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah IMO User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist and User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/AltRight2 are more likely G10 candidates. Lev!vich 19:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if it didn't say mad; "Hitler should be viewed in a non-bias point of view as just another man who ruled a nation" seems just fairly blase about him. It seems more of a statement of indifference (or possibly irreverence to what he did) or potentially some academic statement(?). I'm not quite seeing how this is overtly pro-Hitler, it's not like its saying "I love Hitler". Not sure if it warranted a G10 but I'm not an admin and it probably would have gone at MFD anyway given the current climate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite seeing how this is overtly pro-Hitler, it's not like its saying "I love Hitler". This, however, is. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

They're not saying that on there @BlackcurrantTea:, am I missing something? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, The C of E: I was looking at a very old revision of the page. Someone else did them the favour of de-Hitlering it. I apologise for the confusion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, ok, that was pro-Hitler, and it makes me view the later, more-innocently-written revisions in a different light. Lev!vich 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I'm still in two minds as to whether or not to take {{User fascist}} to WP:MFD. Fascist != Nazi, but still. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at current pages transcluding the Third Positionist userbox also led me to this (transcluded 67 times!) User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Coming of Eurabia, which doesn't appear too constructive either. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• There's an entire category dedicated to 'anti-religion' userboxen. E.g. User:Soumya-8974/NoChristanity. I fail to see what makes the one you're linking to special. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Black Kite, it may not be helpful, but at the same time someone is allowed to be opposed to an ideology and express it on their talk page. If we keep going down this road ultimately most userboxes will end up being deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  all most userboxes deleted? sign me up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• We lost a great administrator today who retired in protest against userbox factionalism. I deleted the userboxes from my user page today, and encourage other editors to think about doing the same. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• The vast forest of userboxes has become a menace. It would be great if we could just delete them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Babelboxes are useful and a few more such as location or age. But I agree the majority are just garbage. This must have been an evergreen topic though, I am sure it is being discussed on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

People are emotionally invested in them. Just try suggesting that we add a "hide" link to the infoboxes and watch the howls of protest. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude and Inter&anthro: maybe the current text of that userbox is fine. The page title is questionable, as is the history [310] Nil Einne (talk)

• Then either the userbox could be moved to a different title or deleted and re-created under a different title. It's not that complicated. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I mean, unless we're about to get rid of all userboxes, deleting boxes like this - which I take to read as the editor's POV (not necessarily one I share) of how to describe Hilter's intentions - is starting a slippery slope against editor ideology which we're already on bad ground with a lot of people with. This specific box could be argued, but I don't see it as one that instantly fails (but likley would fail a XFD with further discussion), but like the one Levivich brings up about the alt-right -- as long as editors are not showing and editing that bias into contributions, there's no harm at all to those infoboxes even though some might find the associations to be distasteful. As others have mentioned, there are some editors that dislike religion so we should get rid of those boxes too on that same logic, which is a slippery slope that I don't think we can argue here. While what happened in userspace is outside NOTCENSORED, we do have to remember we are working with a global editor audiance here with people from all walks of life and might find some with ideas and concepts we find offensive ourselves -- as long as they do not force that onto other editors or into their editing, there's little we should be doing here. --Masem (t) 17:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would support getting rid of all userboxes, so that people who feel the need to declare what they believe on their user pages will write it precisely in their own words rather than link a pre-canned summary that may not encapsulate the nuances. However, this is the wrong venue to talk about that, and I think that any administrative action that might be taken has been taken, so can we just close this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment and block evasion from huge IP range

Could an administrator have a look at the discussion at the bottom of my talk page please? The IP editor should have been affected by a /20 rangeblock. I'm not sure what to do there, even; the harassment is persistently spread across multiple pages and huge IP address ranges. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Back at my desktop keyboard and starting the weekend, I'll try to resolve this myself for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done (Special:Permalink/980302499) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing patterns of User:Manfromnewmexico

I am at wits' end trying to engage Manfromnewmexico. And could do with some guidance. Or intervention. While recent concerns fall under WP:WAR (and could perhaps be dealt with at WP:AN/EW), there are also longstanding concerns relative to WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:BOMBARDMENT, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:REFSPAM and other policies. And hence, perhaps, there is scope for a broader review. I'll keep this as short as I can:

• In Apr 2019, the profile Shamshamster1234 was created. The profile was used primarily to edit an article on the editor's ancestor. But also used to create articles on the editor himself, grandparent, extended family and family home. All are since deleted. Successive notes from multiple editors highlighted that Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as a free Ancestry.com equivalent.
• In Dec 2019, after multiple warnings for similar breaches of Commons project policies, the user's Commons profile was temporarily and then permanently blocked
• In Dec 2019, possibly in response to this Commons block, Newcastle1977 was created on Wikipedia (and Commons) and continued with the same purpose (uploading copyrighted images, copyrighted content and editing the same circle of articles with the same intent; all subject to multiple warnings from various contributors)
• In May 2020, possibly in response to these repeated warnings, this profile was abandoned. And, shortly thereafter, the Manfromnewmexico profile created. After making a transparently nonsense claim to just "happening upon" the same circle of articles, in a display of astonishing WP:REFSPAM, the editor peppered his own self-published book across multiple articles [311]/[312]/[313]/[314]/[315]/[316]/[317]
• Since then, despite multiple (ignored) attempts by myself and other editors to guide them towards the WP:COI and WP:NOTGENEALOGY guidelines, the editor has insisted on including banal trivialities (perhaps of interest to the subject's family, but of little to no interest to a general reader) into articles with which the subject has an association. Including how much the family paid for a cow in the 1940s, and what they then named the cow. And ref-bombing articles with every trivial newspaper article and small ad mentioning or taken-out by subjects. And creating yet further articles containing copyrighted material and/relating to the editors family.

I am not sure what I am asking for. Other than some help to try and reach the editor. As my own repeated attempts have been fully ignored. Perhaps a temporary WP:TBAN is worth considering.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeated warnings, attempts to evade scrutiny... easy call, blocking now. Any unblock would be contingent on addressing the concerns you've articulated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully prompts engagement at least. Thanks for input. Guliolopez (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force: Constant Revision & Personal insult

I added additional info aboutEgyptian Air Force that Turkish Aerospace Industries produced materials. I gave half a dozen sources.. I am insulted and they always revise constantly.. I recommend you take a look. The resources I give official sites. I don't understand what their goals are.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I see on there is someone calling an IP a Turkish troll nothing else offensive. I don't see any edits from yourself on TAI. Failing to see what the issue is here. If it is a content issue please go to the DR board. Games of the world (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Cengizsogutlu, keep discussion of the matter on the article's talkpage. Be sure to format your talkpage posts so that they are easily readable (use bullets and separate lines for each link). Remain civil, and do not make accusations. Discuss content, not editors. And be sure you are only edit from one account; do not sockpuppet or edit via IP. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD closes by DMySon

DMySon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly run into problems trying to clerk AfDs and unfortunately I think the time has come for a formal topic ban.

In the last few months, five editors (Serial Number 54129, TonyBallioni, Praxidicae, Girth Summit and Barkeep49) have warned him about incorrect relists (User talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Relistings, User_talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Relisting, User_talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#AfD relists). Praxidicae and Girth Summit both asked him to stop closing/relisting AfDs, which he agreed to do [318][319]. To be fair, he perhaps meant this as just a commitment not to relist, rather than close or clerk AfDs in general.

However, today I came across a DRV of an AfD that DMySon closed as no consensus despite there being no participation other than the nominator and which could have been soft deleted or relisted. Barkeep49 reverted that as an obvious WP:BADNAC [320]. I followed up and found four more closes by DMySon today, three of which I had to revert and relist [321][322][323] for similar reasons.

I am sure DMySon means well but he is rushing into AfD clerking when he lacks the competence to do so, and unfortunately this has continued despite multiple warnings and commitments to be more careful. There also appears to be some competence issues with CSDs and moves to draft, but I'm hoping a ban from relisting or closing AfDs will be enough to get him to slow down. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• As an admin active at AfD/DRV, I agree with the proposed topic ban. Sandstein 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A concern was mentioned above about moves to draft, that I will restate. Incorrect moves to draft are easily reversed, because they go into AFC and can be accepted by a reviewer, but the reviewer doesn't really want to have to ask, "Why was this draftified?" Biographies of dead people who have an obscure mention in the history of Burma/Myanmar do not need a lot of sources. While systemic bias does not mean that we should accept non-notable crud, it should be considered in leaving dead people in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support tban based on my experience today and as evidenced by the previous communication I had with this editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

General discussion of proposal to limit non-admin closures. Continued at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure.

Non-admin comment: Here's an idea, but I wanted at least a couple of people to give feedback before I post it at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure: Perhaps "non-admin closures" for certain types of discussions should be changed into something like the WP:AFC process, where "tools to make it easy" are only available to people who sign up, and if you sign up and display incompetence, you lose access to the tools. It wouldn't change who could do a non-admin closure, but it would incentivize competence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC) That's an intriguing idea david - essentially limit XfD closer to those who have been granted a pseudo perm. As someone who has concerns about non-admin closing at AfD in a way that those who frequent some other deletion areas don't that could be a good way to nuance this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment) - The one thing to keep in mind is that it would probably be best to keep a way to close your own nomination as a speedy keep withdrawn. That's about the only time I use XFD closer at AFD, although I do clerk RFD on very rare occassions. Seems like withdrawing your own nomination is a fairly uncontroversial NAC, generally. Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment) I think this is an excellent idea. I've never closed an XFD, and have no intention of doing so. I have the WP:APAT and WP:PGM privileges, and had to ask for them and show that I knew what I was doing. To assess competence at WP:AFD, there's the AFD Statistics Tool - %ages for initial sorting, and a list of recent contributions to show activity level and to weed out anyone who might be piling-on. This idea would also give pileologists a useful way to indulge their hobby. Requests are likely to be rare once established XFD closers have been grandfathered in, and so unlikely to consume much admin time. Another way to handle self-withdrawal might be something like the {{db-author}} tag for pages you're sorry you created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narky Blert (talk • contribs) 22:20, September 22, 2020 (UTC) Except withdrawal often occurs after someone else points out that you missed something. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budget Cuts, where me withdrawing quickly was the best course of action after it had been proved notable, but db-author wouldn't work, as I was not the only primary editor, and the discussion there should likely be kept around for posterity about the notability of that article. Seems like leaving a technical exception for self-withdrawals is maybe a good thing to leave open. Hog Farm Bacon 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) I'll go along with that. Another common case is at RFD, when another editor adds a mention and a citation to a disputed target and there's no point in waiting the full 7 days. I was thinking of the admin-needed not the destroy-all-trace element of db-author; I agree that records of XfDs should be preserved. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Proposal discussion to limit non-admin closures to certain peole copied to Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Proposal_- limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list (permalink). Please consider the lines above related to this proposal "archived" and continue the discussion as it relates to XFD on the other page. Please continue the discussion as it related to OTHER non-admin closures below this line or start a new discussion at the appropriate discussion page. If you do start a new discussion, please post a link below this line so we can participate, or ping the names in this section if this discussion has already been archived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My Apologies, It was not my intention to do the wrong things on Wikipedia. I consider it my last warning. You may undid my all closure. I will never touch afd closure in future. Appreciate your time. DMySon 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support t-ban There is no reason we need to continue down this path of empty "I'm sorry"s if the first 5 or warnings weren't enough, there's no reason to believe a sixth formal warning will be. And on an unrelated note to DMySon specifically, I like Davidwr's idea, it should be simple if we set it up like AFC where you have to be on the participant list. Require a number of AFD participation - which is very, very much needed, more so than closers. Praxidicae (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, Sorry for interruption but this is my second mistake in AFD. You said, i did 5 times mistake but i am not able to recognizing my five mistakes on AFD. DMySon 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. Take a look at your own talk page and ctrl+f "sorry" and "never". This isn't only about closures/relists when it comes to repeated mistakes, either. Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Cyphoidbomb, Thank you for the notification. My apologies. That was my mistake. I will never do this again.DMySon 12:28 am, 6 August 2020, Thursday (1 month, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi @Barkeep49:, i have already apologized for this here. And after that discussion i stopped relisting any discussion. DMySon 1:02 am, 26 July 2020, Sunday (1 month, 29 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi @Shirt58:, Thank you for the notification about this. It was a mistake and i am human. I already apologized for this in the above discussion with Girth Summit. And the user who claims me as sock with akmal khan creator, is already afraid to disclose his identity. He did this using ip address (82.132.214.106). Moreover, I am not connected with this man Akmal khan. Off-course you may block my account if you find any connection with this man. I agree i moved the article to the draft but that doesn't mean i am connected to the subject.DMySon 9:03 am, 25 July 2020, Saturday (1 month, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

  My Apologies, I will not do this stuff again.DMySon 11:14 am, 23 July 2020, Thursday (2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi Serial, Thanks for the notification. My apologies, this is my mistake. May i undo my action? DMySon 7:44 am, 28 June 2020, Sunday (2 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)

A bunch of empty promises and apologies are worthless and indicate that you do not intend to stop making the same mistake over and over again. Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Prax, these bunch of apologies are for one mistake. DMySon 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

About Jagdish Mahto 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.

---

1292simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A particular user called Simon is repeatedly putting refimprove tag on the article even though article is fully sourced with preview of high quality books also available . I have tried to discuss issues at his talk page and also on article talk page but he donot responds and donot tell what problems he find. Infact on his talk page he clears my message before replying and puts the tag agains. I look it as Badfaith to derail others progress as he nominated my one article for delition on the grounds i donot agree with. Please help as he never replies and within two or three days just puts the false tags to look article a bogus one.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Almost all the content of article can be found in this book and additional books are also there but i don't know why he seems interesting to spoil the work of others.sorry to say but yes¡ i m feeling so.

book
Omvedt, Gail (1993). Reinventing Revolution: New Social Movements and the Socialist Tradition in India. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 58–60. ISBN 0765631768. Retrieved 2020-06-16.

Heba Aisha (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have notified 1292simon of this discussion, which you should have done (see instructions at top of page). Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

hi but i want atleast admin to be present there as i am aware of his behaviour. This is not the first time.....few days ago when i asked sternly to discuss he nominated my article for delition.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• You left him a message on his talk page yesterday. Yes, if a user is refusing to communicate, that is an issue that we take very seriously, generally with nothing sort of an indefinite block. However, you left him a message on his talk page yesterday, and he has not edited the article since. So I'm unsure why you're bringing this here now. You haven't even given him a chance to reply yet. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Swarm NO Its not about yesterday only. I am asking for his explanation since a long time on articles talk page and his talk page too.See last deleted discussion in red [324]. But no reply while he replies to others and just clear my comments and put tag on the article again. This is a bad faith attitude to delete clean article anyhow. He did same with one of my article. Nominated for delition although new page reviewr passed that article as a clean one. The deliting admins edit history showed that he usually edits sports related article and mine was government of india programme related. Also i m new so without verifying the admin deleted it as the tag was of G11 i.e advertising or promotion. He can do same with other articles. He is tagged right now about discussion on this forum. After tagging he made many edits but he didn't made even a single comment here. Sure he is evading u and will do the same after closure of this discussion.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

He put the tag on twice the first time was justified the second needs explanation but seems accidental (assuming good faith here). Question though have you just admitted to having multiple accounts as evident in the link you gave in the entry above? Games of the world (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, it's 1292simon here. Heba Aisha: no I am not trying to evade anyone. Your accusation that I am trying "to spoil the work of others" is also hurtful.

  Here's my take on what happened: on 20 September, Heba Aisha made some changes to improve the tone in one section and deleted the tags (Refimprove and Tone). The edits did not add any references and I thought that the tone was still a problem elsewhere in the article, so I restored these tags. Then I have not touched the article since Heba Aisha removed the tags again on 25 September.

  IMHO is is quite unnecessary to report me to ANI for this. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask 1292simon .....is there any problems in current version. Plz tell it clearly here.Games of the world No......i m saying in deleted comments last one is mine.....see when i m asking him whether he will help me if i create an article or not.? This one Hi first of all sorry for all that. I want to ask....if i create that article again with improvement. Can u support me in pointing out mistake i made. ThanksHeba Aisha (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC) what i asked on 21 September. Since many people seems to have problem with his way of not replying and in the diff. I provided above he is clearing comments of all including mine which is last one in the cleared thread. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2020 (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.

Question about outing a paid editor

(The names have been changed in the following to protect the guilty)

I noticed that a user who I will call User:Banana1 was doing a lot of editing promoting a cryptocurrency/blockchain product which I will call wackywidget.

A Web search found the following at cryptowackywidget.com, posted by user "banana"

"Hi there! I am Geoff Banana and wanted to introduce myself! I am Marketing Lead at CryptoWackyWidget and part of the BlockChainWidget family. I am working primarily on Community/SEO and growth hacking topics and love helping to grow a lively CryptoWackyWidget developer community."

Having the same name with a "1" at the end and editing about the same company where he is a marketing lead working on SEO (search engine optimization) quacks "paid editor".

But if I post the evidence at ANI replacing "Geoff Banana" with the actual name, "banana1" with the actual wikipedia user name, and "cryptowackywidget" with the actual company name, would I be violating WP:OUTING? If so, how do I report this?

Asking for a friend. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think in a situation like this it's best just to email arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That can't be right. There are 14 arbs and thousands of COI editors. Asking Arbcom to deal with every slam dunk case that involves off-wiki evidence will swamp them with work. It would be better to pick a random admin and email them if the info can't be publicly revealed.

But is it really true that the info can't be revealed? Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing says

"We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing. Posting and discussing information such as links to an editor’s job posting, company profile, or other information connecting that editor to editing an article subject for pay can be an effective way to identify and stop undisclosed paid editing. These kinds of transparent investigations may also help prevent abuse and ensure that people who aren’t actually connected to editing for pay can have an opportunity to explain their situation if circumstances cause a mistake to happen. It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements."

So let me ask a more pointed question: if I post the evidence concerning "Geoff Banana" and his paid editing for "cryptowackywidget" corporation, is somebody here going to report me for violating WP:OUTING? Or is it better for some admin to block "Geoff Banana" but refuse to say why? Even a simple "User:Banana1 is blocked for paid editing" will allow anyone to look at the "cryptowackywidget" webpage (it's pretty obvious that Banana1's edits always promote cryptowackywidget) and see his publicly posted name and other personal information. How would an uninvolved admin be able to evaluate an unblock request when the reason for the block is not revealed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the more widely published things are in off-Wiki reliable sources, the less you have to worry about "outing." If the name is nearly identical, it's almost a sure bet that either it's the same guy or a joe job. In either case, the name SHOULD be brought to an administrator's attention, because having a username that might suggest you are someone else - having a name or name and editing behavior that together suggest you are the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget when in fact you are not - is impersonation. Let's say the marketing lead's name is common, like Joe Smith. Let's say his username is JoeSmith1 (apologies to whoever has that username). If JoeSmith1 almost exclusively edits pages related to CryptoWackyWidget, then it should be reported. If only a small fraction are related to CryptoWackyWidget, and the other edits are not problematic in their own right, just assume it's a coincidence of names. On the other hand, if the marketing lead's name is very unique, then consider reporting it even if the majority of the user's edits are unrelated and okay, if for no other reason than to have an administrator strongly suggest that the editor put a disclaimer on his user page saying he is NOT the same person as the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget and that he has no affiliation with that company. Also, you may not have to go straight to WP:UAA, it might be enough to put one of the COI user-warning templates found on WP:Username policy#Talk to the user to get him to change his username and to get him to pay attention to WP:COI and WP:Paid editing disclosure if they apply to him, or to put a disclaimer on his user page if it's not "him." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW Guy when I found myself in that situation, I emailed an admin the off-wiki evidence and let them take it from there. Lev!vich 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• While there are cases where off-wiki evidence can be useful, this is usually best handled on-wiki via looking at the content and behaviour. WP:NOTSPAM is a policy. If someone is spamming admins can and should block without the need to involve functionaries looking at private information: the private stuff is rarely actionable (though it sometimes can be), and even in cases where it is actionable, you’re likely going to get a quicker response by handling it at WP:COIN and having one of the admins who regularly patrols that board block based on what can be seen on-wiki. If it really absolutely needs to be private, then yes, you can email ArbCom, but really most of this should be handled on-wiki without the need to involve private evidence. Admins can block for advertising without needing to see an off-wiki ad. My view is that they should do it more and be more comfortable with it. It’s not just about PAID— we have a policy that prohibits all advertising whether paid or not. If you enforce that, the paid question largely handles itself. Tl;dr— use on-wiki evidence and file a report at WP:COIN. In most cases that should be sufficient. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I decided to do:

• Warn editor: User talk:Andreolf1#Paid editing warning. Note that I did not mention where I got the "in your own words" information.
• Revert paid edits: [325][326][327][328][329][330][331][332][333][334].
• Propose merge: Talk:Digital Asset Holdings#Merger Discussion.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)