Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 20 January 2022 (→Neel.arunabh's competence issues: sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Second Chance

    The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.

    In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and have stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.

    More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.

    I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.

    Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have briefly addressed the past and my plans for the future above. As stated, I have little time to edit and don't wish or plan to engage in disputes. It's one of the reasons I have not, and will not, respond to unfounded speculations about my motives elsewhere in the thread. I just don't have the time or the inclination. Likewise, I don't see a back and forth re-litigating the circumstances of my ban as being productive. I am sorry if what I said already is not enough for you as it seems to have been for everyone else.
    The community has the opportunity to give me a second chance. If they do, and I abuse it, the ban can easily be reimposed. If nothing else, I think I have shown that I will abide by the terms of a T-ban, as it seems you have abided by the terms of yours. If the community decides the standard offer does not apply to me then nothing will change, including, it seems, that reference error now in its third year. Either way, I am more interested in looking forward than backward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears to me that you have misrepresented the simple question I asked and failed to post any substantive response. From my experience at the Knights article, this is exactly the kind of uncollaborative engagement that resulted in your ban. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking Slugger's recent activity, I see lots of the same old problems here. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    discussion

    User:56FireLeafs - questionable edits

    56FireLeafs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been removing a significant amount of content without leaving much, if any, reason/explanation in an edit summary. Seems to feel justified because, as 56FireLeafs said on their talk page in November (diff #1 below), "What am saying IS right". Much seems to be based on own option / wp:OR.

    1. Diff: Discussion on own talk page Nov 2021 Appears not much has changed since then.
    2. Diff: Edit and reply on BhagyaMani's talk page
    3. Diff: "Reason" added to my talk page This is obvious evidence that Wikipedians hate Ligers.
    4. Diff: Same content added to 56FireLeafs'

    I did add two citations to Liger after reverting 56FireLeafs. They were easy to find.
    Pinging talk page owners: @BhagyaMani and Sandstein:
    This leaves me to strongly suspect that 56FireLeafs is WP:NOTHERE. Adakiko (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    S/he deleted ref'ed content at the Panthera blythae page a few times without giving a reason. And after I reverted their edits 2x, s/he posted ↑ talk. Y'day, s/he deleted the same content one more time, but after I posted a warning on their talk page, s/he stopped. I think s/he just did not understand NPOV yet, has lots of opinions but little knowledge. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon for not giving reasons. But you have to admit that many info in those pages is not necessary. And what am saying IS mostly right. The relationship between Panthera Blytheae and Snow Leopard and the fact that it has at least some basic Panthera features and also the fact that is NOT considered the oldest Pantherine already places it within Panthera. Although i admit this statement can be questioned, my Liger claim is objectively correct. Carol Baskin has little to no knowledge of biology. So before i continue am gonna debunk the arguments most Liger opponents use:

    "Their unnatural": Then don't shave your armpits, as that's unnatural. And also don't have a house either as that's unnatural. Natural and unnatural doe snot mean good or bad.

    "Their habitats do not overlap": A) At some point in the Pleistocene they did. B)So your telling me that an American man cannot date a French woman just because their from different places? Also, Brown Bears (Ursus Arctos) and Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) live in different places but after Polar Bears migrated do the south they started hybridizing with Brown Bears.

    "They don't exist in the wild": At some point they did. Plus, what does that have to do with anything of weather Ligers should exist or not?

    Now that ive debunked this claims lets talk about why does animal rights groups are wrong about Ligers (PS: Am not defending the practice of breeding Ligers for profit, am only defending their existence). This groups constantly talk about Panthera Hhybrids suffering from "diseases". This is inaccurate because:

    -Their studies are only based on Ligers (P.Leo x P.Tigris), not Panthera hybrids as a whole.

    -This studies say that Ligers suffer from "sterility". First off, what does being sterile have anything to do with health? Second, females are perfectly capable of breeding, males usually are sterile but there is a small chance for them to be born fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. Also, not being able to reproduce=\=being useless. By their logic, i suppose that then homosexuality should not be allowed either, since males cannot reproduce between themselves, right? This video explains everything: Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler: minute 2:10

    -This studies are only in reference to captive breed animals, but not hypothetical wild Panthera Hybrids. Animals breed in captivity =\= animals born in the wild. They also are only biased towards certain Ligers they supposedly saw but not ALL Ligers in Earth. They also forget that the reasons why they might suffer from diseases is due to zoo conditions (they same we could say about non hybrids in zoos) or inbreeding (There is evidence that white tigers are many times inbreed in zoos, and considering that zoos cannot afford having too many animals, lack of genetic diversity in Liger breeding is not that uncommon).

    -Many of the people who made this studies have very outdated information and many of them possibly work for or support PETA.

    -They gave a link to Carol Baskin's, who as i told you has little to no knowledge of biology, is a hypocrite who shames Joey Exotic for keeping Panthera species in cages despite her doing the same thing, using the same awful arguments against Ligers and also possibly killed her husband.

    There you have it. Feel free to debate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And that right there is a clear flag of WP:NOTHERE if I ever saw one. This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers (and for the record, ligers not occurring in the wild does make them rather unnatural, and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy), but your own battlefield mentality.
    For my part, I'm the one who read and added that section to P. blytheae, and I actually read the source through. It is valid, written by people who know what they were talking about, and had valid concerns. The species has not been studied enough to state that its position is a fact. For that matter, very, very, little in paleontology is considered a fact when it comes to the classification and position of species. Your insisting otherwise calls into question your competence here.
    I concur with BhagyaMani that 56FireLeafs has many opinions and little knowledge, and also call into question their WP:COMPETENCE. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I really do not know who is that guy your talking about, i would appreciate if you gave me more info of him. "This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers". I was asking to debate n my page. And am not asking weather their natural or not, am ask if its fine for them to exist considering that Humans breed with Neanderthals and the fact that the eastern coyote was the result f crossbreeding between Coyotes and Wolfs. Panthera hybrids are no different as in all three cases its between species of the same genus. And you have to remember that natural\unnatural=\=good or bad. I suppose yo shouldn't brush your teeth as that's unnatural, right? And at some point ligers possibly did happen:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/ .People also thought that Brown bear and Polar Bear hybrids where unnatural as they did no happened in the wild, and look now, there are starting to hybridize. Not to mention there is evidence that lions crossbreed with snow leopards, who are closely related to tigers. "and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy" the fact that its considered doe snot mean its true. Also, female ligers are always fertile, male usually are sterile but their is a small percentage for them to be fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. And ive seen lots of male sterile Ligers that appear to be fine. And the reason why am making this debate is so people can get the right information so we can make sure the page does not misinform the viewer. I've tried to change the page multiple times so i could present the correct information but it appears that unless i can convince them otherwise, Wikipedians wont let me make the changes. Many Wikipedians are so biased towards reading articles that they never question if the articles in question are factually correct or if they contain outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not here to question articles--what you're talking about sounds a lot like WP:OR. If you have reliable sources, by all means, present them, but "debate me" is not a helpful stance and your current trajectory will get you blocked from the site sooner rather than later. Best of luck however you choose to proceed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be relevant, but they decided to take it to my talk page as well, with the same badly-spelled and formatted paragraph as above. And I would like to point out, blogs are rarely acceptable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magnatyrannus

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

    Note the following was drafted with other editors at WP:PALAEO, and many more diffs can be provided: Ever since they joined Wikipedia last year, Magnatyrannus has made over a thousand edits to dinosaur- and paleontology-related articles. While some of his changes are valid, a vast majority are subpar; among other things, they have rewritten pages and templates to fit his viewpoints of how dinosaurs are classified, going as far as to delete statements they personally disagrees with, (diff 1 diff 2) and has WP:EDITWARed to keep them (see here). They have shown a strong preference for his "offical classifications" and a stern refusal to accept alternate viewpoints and seek consensus (see here, here, and here). They usually don't communicate, but when they do, it's usually a mocking remark (diff 3 diff 4). They have also written personal attacks on the user pages of those who disagree with them (diff 5). It has become tiring for WikiProject editors to sift through his changes to determine which are valid and which are not. Off-wiki evidence shows his combative attitude spills over to external sites, so we believe they are not WP:COMPETENT enough to build an encyclopedia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Co-signing the above and adding a few supporting diffs:
    • Personal attacks: [1]
    • POV and failure to understand consensus: [2]
    Notably, many of Magnatyrannus' contentious edits are based on a single scientific paper expressing views that are not yet universally accepted by researchers, which violates WP:NPOV. Despite multiple attempts at communicating how scholarly consensus is established and promises by Magnatyrannus to the contrary (see linked diff), the user continues to engage in edit-warring behaviour to implement the findings of a single paper instead of the most neutral alternative (see diffs by FunkMonk). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One may note that Magnatyrannus has continued to (seemingly) try to engage in edit-warring behaviour (see this revert: [3]) while completely ignoring this discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue with Magnatyrannus's edits is WP:IDHT, they essentially ignore the consensus of other users are edit war their preferred version. The fact that they make juvenile insults on other people's userpages shows major WP:CIR issues. I'd recommend a topic ban from taxonomy or possibly an under WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pink clock Awaiting administrative action He's still reverting other editors even if other viewpoints are explained to him, see [4] Atlantis536 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At least some action feels necessary to get Magnatyrannus to even acknowledge this ANI thread. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Magnatyrannus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User making repeated small edits

    Odd editing pattern noted, no need for action unless actual disruption occurs. signed, Rosguill talk 05:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    N013i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just look at the edit history. In one case, they added a few sentences to an article on word at a time. Now it is mostly to their user page. Trying to get WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED? Besides this, they have created one article which is headed for deletion, MB 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The account was created in 2009 EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but still far short of 500 edits. MB 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Honestly mate, I'm just doing something till the fate of MetalJesusRocks is decided, so I'll know hot to proceed in the future. If you do browse my edit history all the way back till 2009, You'll see I often create one or two articles over the years as I can amass time. ~Nabeel~N013i 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything to be concerned about here. Even if their goal is to game EC status for the purpose of editing EC-protected articles, the moment they vandalize a protected article or otherwise edit in a disruptive manner, someone will take a quick look at their editing history, very quickly realize that they gamed EC status, and block them. If they're not gaming EC status and not intending to vandalize protected articles, then no harm is being done. Although I'll admit it is strange behavior to repeatedly edit a bunch of numbers on your user page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jacob300

    Jacob300's edits are biased toward Somaliland. As far as I can see, that trend is likely to start around October 2020.

    The editing trends of Jacob300, it has a very much history of deletions. Almost all of them are designed to remove statements that are detrimental to Somaliland. Jacob300 gives reasons such as "unsourced + duplication", "stable version", "No relevance to article" OR "Removed as per WP:BOLD" OR "Irrelevant". But it is clear that they are afterthoughts. Jacob300 often do editing wars for the similar reason. For examples, Las Anod, Khatumo State.

    Somaliand has border disputes with its eastern neighbor, Puntland, in addition to the famous independence issue. (See also a BBC News.) This dispute involves the particular circumstances of the region, but is essentially a typical border issue. If we gather and compile information in good faith, we can find information that is favorable to Somaliland, and we can also find information that is unfavorable.

    Jacob300 recently reverted several edits that I took the time to go over, without adequate explanation (Bo'ame, Buraan, El_Afweyn.) I think it's unacceptable to remove information that other editors have taken the time to research just because they doesn't like it. If ever contributed to Wikipedia after doing some research, they can imagine how demotivating it can be to do this.

    I had several conversations with Jacob300 to resolve some similar issues, but his explanation was not logical.

    I think Jacob300 is not neutral in matters concerning Somaliland, I think he should not edit anything related to Somaliland.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Response: All of my edits and contributions are fully explained in related edit summaries and your notion that I remove statements “detrimental to Somaliland” are unfounded. In reference, to my edits on Bo'ame, Buraan and El-Afweyn - I have clearly stated in my edit summaries that reversions were made in accordance with WP:BOLD. If you disagreed with such edits, you could have taken this to relevant talk pages.
    For example, the edit I made on the Bo'ame page was in relation to the lack of relevance and undue weight it had on the article. In addition to unnecessarily bloating an article. E.g. in the sentence “In May 2015, Puntland's Ministry of Education visited the educational situation in Bo'ame district.” - Please explain how this is a notable event? As Wikipedia is not a news source.
    Additionally, my edit on the El-Afweyn page was also made on similar grounds. “In July 2001, the government of Puntland enacted the "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Puntland," declaring the Sanaag region, except for El Afwein and the northeastern part of Erigavo, to be its territory.” - Please explain how this relevant to the article? The addition of the header “Puntland influence” can also be viewed as not being in accordance with NPOV.
    It should also be noted that IP user 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk · contribs) has only made a single edit requesting a DS notice against me, which can be viewed as strange.
    Kind regards, Jacob300 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, you've addressed two of the issues there, fair enough. You've failed to explain several others. What makes Somaliland Today and Hiraan Online unreliable? You repeatedly use the phrase "reverted to stable version," but what makes those versions "stable," and says who? These are questions to which, as Freetrashbox accurately states, you've failed to respond. WP:BOLD does not immunize you against the need to defend your edits, when asked to do so, to the satisfaction of consensus. You may do so now. Ravenswing 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the most important things to know about a town in this area is what kind of organization is providing what kind of government services. In my description, you can see that the Puntland government is involved in the administration of Bo'ame. This is quite a different feature from its neighbors Gambadhe or Fardhidin. Basically, Puntland's involvement in the administration in Sool is rare. The statements you erased together, such as the deadly conflict in August 2021, and Bo'ame's non-participation in the famous Somaliland national election of 2021, are also incidents notability of mention.
      As for El Afweyn I have already explained why on the Talk page. However, your response to that was difficult to understand, as it effectively just repeated what you said before, and lacked specifics. Also, the name of the section was "Puntland influence" because the influence of Puntland was significant, and the name does not indicate that Puntland was good or bad.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct problems at move discussion

    Omegatron is an admin who notes "people are frustrating", at least at this version of their tlak page, which is a worrying trait for an admin; though no admin tools have been exercised in this event. I will suggest their contributions over a desire to move the article Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia have been disruptive and problematic, not of the standard to be expected of an experienced user let alone an admin where a higher standard is expected. A BOLD move of what might reasonably be expected be controversial at Special:Diff/1060932429, let alone issues because a move had previously been slightly discussed at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination/Archive 1#Adenoviruses only?, though the entire content of the talk and archive should have been. Following a somewhat assertive exchange correctly in my opinion raised a Special:Diff/1060938802 requested move on 18 December 2021. However per my comment at Special:Diff/1061542226 Omegatron had indulged in disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion and a Canvas, which while I can AGF he intended to be "fair", was, I would say, ultimately biased. Plus per WP:CANVAS good practice would have been to "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Ultimately the CANVAS issue is minor, change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter. Whether Omegatron's timing to challenge this today was to do with RL, which I can accept, although doing a CANVAS and then disappearing is not really great practice, but it can happen. However responding today a few days after the Special:Diff/1065055859 discussion was closed, half questioning my concern about discussion irregularities (and not owning the major part or the problems) at Special:Diff/1065826060 brings this here, plus Omegatron seems not to have respected closer Mike Cline's request to discuss a move review on his page as requested, but rather to continue on the article talk page dragging me into it first. This seems like behaviour that is unbecoming or any user, let alone an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't want to prejudice any serious discussion here, but, to be brutally honest, it is starting to look a bit like either no-one cares about this complaint, or they are all going WP:TLDR. I make no comment on the validity of the complaint. As an aside, this may be better suited to WP:AN. Just a few peanuts from the comment gallery. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a sad examplebad example to set. Thankyou. 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading through the discussion, I see some bludgeoning by Omegatron. It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more. The canvassing concerns seem hyperbolic, particularly given the balance of the !votes in that discussion against Omegatron. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rosguill: Thankyou for taking time to analyze. With respect I think you've been a little soft to the unsigned significant changes in the discussion/nomination when people have responded to that nomination. So it's gone above a little bludgeoning. In terms of the canvas not affecting the !voting, that not really the point. Per Special:Diff/1061321198 the criteria was one of the top 10 contributors to this article - actually I've pretty sure on the edit count metric was not top ten prior to the canvas but useful contributions post canvas brought this user into a top ten edit count. A "top-ten" contributor who had been strident in attempting to ensure the article was not promoted was omitted. It is actually pretty easy to accept that Omegatron would believe they were doing an unbiased canvas ... though in practice it is very difficult to avoid concerns of systemic bias from particular angle and the obvious thing per recommendation is to declare the canvas on the discussion. But ion all events the canvas was secondary to the bludgeoning and talk interference and I again put as a very poor example for admins to show. Thankyou. 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    WP:NOTHERE editing by Aydın memmedov2000

    1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[6]
    2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[7] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
    3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[8]
    4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[9]
    5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[10]
    6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[11]
    7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[12]
    8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[13]
    9. Warned on numerous occassions.[14]-[15]-[16]-[17]

    Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • from what I've seen personally, I agree that the reported user is a NOTHERE nationalist editor. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • this kind of behaviour is hard to treat, a topic ban with an option of applying for a ban lift in 6 months if behaves in other areas perhaps could treat the problem. --Armatura (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The forum comment at Iranian Azerbaijanis is quite bad form. I'd be able to AGF about most of the other edits in this report, but am much more concerned by edits like Special:Diff/1061922934, where it appears that they attempted to pass off a source as saying something it did not. I think Armatura's suggestion of a medium-length tban is sensible, and think that having it apply to "origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed" would address the scope of articles where they've exhibited battleground attitudes. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastern Geek and EC permission gaming

    Eastern Geek has, for their first 500 edits, made some 140+ useless edits to his common.js (examples [18], [19], [20]) and for the rest a series of category changes later self-reverted, see for example [21] and [22]. Since reaching 500 edits and 1 month tenure, the user has begun to focus on ARBPIA topics. As in other cases this feels like obvious socking, but even without spending the time to figure out who it is (guessing Yaniv) the extended-confirmed status was clearly gamed and should be revoked. nableezy - 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastern Geek (talk · contribs) has made a total of 562 edits from 5 December 2021 to 16 January 2022. That includes 143 edits to User:Eastern Geek/common.js and 218 edits using Cat-a-lot. I plan to remove the extended confirmed user right. I'm wondering if that needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Palestine-Israel articles. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought if you remove the extended confirmed user right, it gets restored automatically next time the user edits?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the extended confirmed user right and I believe it will not be automatically re-added. It could be added by an administrator if they were satisfied that it was appropriate. I notified the user but I'm still not sure whether it needs to be logged (I can't find any examples of similar actions being logged). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not think it needs to be logged.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I remembered an SPI discussion where an editor said that User:Icewhiz's sockpuppets used the strategy of racking 500 edits by making minute adjustments to pages, and editing PIA pages once the accounts became Excon'ed. Could we consider sending Eastern Geek there? Apolitically yours, NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's something that gets done by many socks in that area. Yaniv is fairly similar to Icewhiz, and they seem to coordinate off-wiki. They are similar enough that relatively few users can tell them apart. Nableezy is quite familiar with both. I'd say that if Nableezy says it's Yaniv, it's more likely Yaniv than Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella is also very familiar with them, it might do to let them know about this thread? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz was slightly more subtle than entirely useless edits to a file in their userspace imo. On brand for Yaniv but not a slam dunk. Would bet dollars to donuts its a sock of somebody though. nableezy - 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following text added by Nunuxxx (talk · contribs · count) to Armenia–Georgia relations [23] is taken word-for-word from pages 185 and 186 of "Armenia: Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State" by Samuel Weems, an infamous genocide denier, historical negationist, and criminal:


    • The sufferings of the people of Akhalkalak dwarfed the tribulations of all other Armenians in Georgia. Thirty thousand had perished as the result of the Turkish occupation, and those who survived were starving. Some mothers attempted to save their daughters by offering them as wives to Georgian militiamen and soldiers. Russian, Jewish, and Georgian entrepreneurs were reportedly buying young girls for 100 to 300 rubles and sending them to brothels; eight- to twelve-year-old orphan boys were being sold for a pittance at Bakuriani; hundreds of women and children were pressed into servitude in the adjacent Muslim districts. All roads leading away from Akhalkalak were strewn with the bodies of fleeing Armenians.


    Links to the pages [24][25]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That extract is from Richard G. Hovannisian's “The Republic of Armenia Volume II: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920”, in the second paragraph of page 151, as was cited in the Armenia-Georgia relations article. I'd like to add that if you were concerned about a copyright violation, you could have reached out to me directly instead of escalating to ANI (which is a last-resort avenue). In any case, I did not read about or hear of Samuel Weems or his book before. I believe what may have occurred is that Weems copied the extract from Hovannisian's book to validate his own publication. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nunuxxx, could you expand on this a bit, I don't seem to understand: are you saying that this has been copied verbatim from a source, just not the source that ZaniGiovanni thought it had? Is there any reason why that is not WP:COPYVIO? (Also, are those curly apostrophes?!?) Girth Summit (blether) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Essentially yes, I mistakenly forgot to place the extract in a quote block as I had intended, however, I did remember to cite the source of the extract so as to indicate its origin. I will correct this shortly, or paraphrase it, whichever is more suitable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nunuxxx: this doesn't seem like a reliable source, shouldn't it just be removed? Levivich 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who has studied the subject in great depth, I can attest to the fact that Richard G. Hovannisian is considered in English academia the foremost expert on the First Republic of Armenia which is reflected by the detailed 4 volume series on its existence which he has published through the University of California press. He is acknowledged and cited by numerous authors, Armenian and Azerbaijani alike for his reliable and thorough academic contributions to the subject, therefore, I believe his publications can with certainty be considered as reliable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, my mistake, I misread and thought you were quoting Weems not Hovannisian. Levivich 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I find it hard to credit the idea that you could have mistakenly forgotten to put text like that in a quote block. This isn't just about missing some tags: when you are going to quote someone, you have to write attribution stuff around it (e.g. "Armenian American historian Richard G. Hovannisian, writing in his history on the period The Republic of Armenia (Volume II), wrote..."). You didn't bother with any of that, you just presented it as your own words, and put it inappropriately into Wikipedia's voice. That's completely inappropriate on several levels: putting the obvious COPYVIO issues to one side, historians don't write encyclopedically, the are often making an argument and writing persuasively. Their views are their own, whereas we have to attempt to represent scholarly consensus. I don't have a view on whether the source is unreliable, as Levivich suggests, but certainly inserting without attribution as you did is massively inappropriate, and it makes me worried about whether your other contributions need to be checked over. Have you ever added text from a historical work in a similar manner before? Girth Summit (blether) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have used Hovannisian's work in other articles, yes. After familiarising myself with WP:COPYVIO, I deleted one paragraph that I used from the source here. I also created this article with that source and I can nominate it for deletion for COPYVIO or you could delete it yourself. I'm a relatively new editor, I only recently became active on Wikipedia some months ago starting with adding statistical data into tables, so I'm still rather inexperienced in regards to copyright policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to pass it off as my own, that was not at all my intention and I will certainly try to be more careful in future to ensure my edits are made in accordance with WP:COPYVIO and WP:MOS. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you copy any content from the source into the article? Our automated copyvio detection tools don't pick up anything on that article, but they are not foolproof - if the stuff comes from an offline source like a hardcopy book, or it's an online source that the tool can't access, the copyvio won't be detected. If it only contains a few sentences that were copied, they could be removed/rewritten, then I could revdel the old versions. If most of the text of the article has been copied from the book, it would be simpler just to delete the article and start again from scratch.
      Copyright is a complex, but important part of editing here. You can start by read WP:COPYRIGHT, the overarching policy, then following the links in there to find out more. But to understand it in a nutshell, take this on board: you must not copy text from any source. Ideally, you shouldn't be basing content off of a single source - you should try to collect two or three sources covering the material you want to write about, then try to summarise what they each have to say in your own words. Occasionally, there will be particular phrases that are almost impossible to express in different words - that's OK, but keep it to an absolute minimum. If you get the the point that you have copied a whole sentence, you have gone much too far. Changing the odd word here and there is known as WP:Close paraphrasing, and it's also not permissible - if your sentence presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, just using the occasional synonym to make them different, then it is too close to the original. Even in cases where the source is out of copyright, or in the public domain, there are tags that you need to apply to provide attribution if you copy from it in order to be compliant with our policy here. Oh, and in case you were thinking about copying content from one article to another: WP:CWW. Even if you wrote the original text yourself, you need to provide attribution when copying it into a new article.
      Going further than that, there are issues with the text quoted above which make in unsuitable for an article here. One group of people's suffering dwarfing that of another group of people: that's a subjective judgment, whcih can be mentioned, but the person who wrote that needs to be attributed; Wikipedia doesn't make judgments of that sort in its own voice. The rest of it should have been summarised into a sentence or two about people being sold into servitude and prostitution in order to survive - to fit with our house style, it shouldn't be written as emotively as it currently is. Girth Summit (blether) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I did copy and cite some paragraphs (with minor adjustments to grammar and geographical terms) in that article, however, it's from an offline PDF so it may not have been detected. Alternatively, perhaps the article could be moved to a "draft" and rewritten to conform to WP, or I can rewrite it from my sandbox, whichever you think is more appropriate. Thank you for explaining the policy in-detail, I will definitely acquaint myself with WP:COPYRIGHT to make my edits more original, and also more objective in accordance to WP:NPOV, as I understand the purpose is to present an objective collection of information and facts and let the reader form their own conclusion. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for being frank about that. I've deleted the page, and its associated talk page, as a copyright infringement - copyright violations aren't permitted anywhere, including in draft space or user space I'm afraid. If you are going to copy content from a source, you need to do that offline on your own device, and ensure that it is re-written in your own words before uploading here. Girth Summit (blether) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging Moneytrees, as an admin with more familiarity with copyvio issues than I have - if you could skim through the thread above, and comment on whether you think any further investigation/action is required, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit (blether) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Girth Summit You asked if they copy-pasted text to other articles. Not sure if these violate COPYVIO, but here: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wanted to also add that it's interesting how Nunuxxx, being a self-proclaimed person who studied the subject in great depth, misrepresents historian and their quotes, ignoring conclusions in the book and passages he cites, just to defend his tendentious edit. Please see reply and explanation regarding that edit here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you're slightly mistaken on one point; WP:NOATT says If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary, so if they wrote the original text and it has not been altered by other editors, copying without attribution is permissible. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may some changes to the article on Samuel Weems where the material from the obit tracks with the source content, though probably in an acceptable manner. That biography raises some neutrality concerns and makes me wonder if the book mentioned at the start of this thread is actually a RS for use on WP for anything but Weems' own views. I wondered about a talk page-discussion, but figure there are few eyes on that page. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing by User:Veneta1 on article Dua Lipa

    This was archived on 24 December 2021 (diff) without any comments, so i brought it back.

    This was archived a second time on 9 January 2022 (diff) with the suggested sanction still pending; i had posted it on the main noticeboard by mistake, but received a couple of comments nonetheless.

    This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing; even after being reported at WP:ANI on 20 December. This needs some attention, and hopefully an admin will take a better look, now that i brought the report back from the archives.

    Diffs of User:Veneta1

    1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
    2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
    3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
    4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
    5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
    6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
    7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
    8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
    9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
    10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
    11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
    12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
    13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
    14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
    15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
    16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
    17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
    18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
    19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
    20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
    21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
    22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
    23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
    24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
    25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
    26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
    27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
    28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
    29. 14:00, 20 December 2021
    30. 01:14, 27 December 2021

    Diffs of edit warring warning

    1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
    2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
    3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
    4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
    5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
    6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
    7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

    Sidenote: I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor should be given an warning, and avoid repeating these edits unless they discuss it first on the talk page and seek consensus, providing that they have reliable sources to back their edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, they shouldn't be given another warning, because they've had seven warnings already. They've edited their own talk page so we know those warnings have been received. They've been informed of what policy says. We're now well within sanctions territory. Suggest a pblock from editing Dua Lipa, which would be revocable once they indicate an intent to edit within policy.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall: I agree; a WP:PBAN seems like the most appropriate sanction. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This report is still pending administrative action. If any administrators are reading this and can impose the suggested sanction, i would appreciate it; unless someone disagrees. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Demetrios1993: If this is still happening in January 2022, please post the diffs of it. If it is not still happening in January 2022, then this is done and can go back to the archives: you've already achieved the goal, which is to stop this from happening. Levivich 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Levivich: Thanks for the reply. The issue is that Veneta1 continued with the same disruptive editing even after he/she was reported at WP:ANI on 20 December 2021. So, i don't think my report had anything to do with it; i assume the only reason he/she hasn't disrupted the article since 27 December 2021, is because he/she hasn't bother editing Wikipedia, as is evident from his/her contributions. Nonetheless, the fact is that the user has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet this didn't prevented him/her from the same behavior. Assuming good faith is very hard at this point, and i feel that if the user isn't sanctioned appropriately, we will have to deal with the same matter in the future. Again, this is an issue of tendentious editing, which has helped the user evade detection for a long period of time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PBLOCK issued (not a PBAN, which is something quite different). Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mjroots: Thanks for dealing with the matter. By the way, in short and for future reference, what's the difference between a WP:PBLOCK and a WP:PBAN? Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A PBLOCK is a block from editing the article, a PBAN is a ban from the page, including its talk page. The advantage of a PBLOCK is that it leaves the talk page open for constructive discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused, because WP:PBAN, as it is written, implies the possibility of including or excluding an article's talk page from the ban. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grandmaster

    Take it to WP:AE signed, Rosguill talk 07:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    1. This user cites EPRESS.AM - an apparently, agonisingly, laughingly unreliable source, which cites an unknown social media user's unidentifiable facebook post, about an unheard "hydrogen bomb Armenians used" written with CAPS LOCKs and ??? marks, to prove a point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons". The fact that epress.am does not even have contacts, an editor, domain registration details, literally ANYTHING to make it an media outlet, that it is full of taboo words and incomprehensible profanity like "ժաժ տալուց բռնին" ("caught when jerking") or "ձեր լավը քունեմ" (I f***ed your mothers) and "փրկիր, տեր աստված" ("help me God, my Lord"), վիրտուալ հիսուս ("virtual Jesus"), "mr. putin will see you now" does not worry Grandmaster at all. He won't listen and keeps beating the dead horse again, and again.
    2. Grandmaster does not see or chooses not to see an apparent propaganda. E.g. he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying "That is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?... Btw, that BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima after the Armenian occupation."
    3. Grandmaster tests other users' good faith in him by using double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it unduly high weight like in Epress.am craziness example, or giving it unduly low weight weight, like here, by removing Armenian villager's quote despite it is cited by neutral RS", depending what better suits his POV-pushing for the given context.

    This user chronically violates WP:CIR, WP:CPUSH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:ADVOCACY policies, disregards all pleas for stopping that behaviour by using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and keeps trolling the discussion till the opponent leaves the field out of desperation. No reasoning, no friendly word of caution, no warning, nothing affects Grandmaster. He just has this narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys", and edits under this light in recognisable WP:TENDENTIOUS style, just below the threshold to avoid a ban. I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed, would be the only helpful remedy.--Armatura (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is another baseless report on me by this user. Previously he joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [31] Recently he filed a 3RR report on me [32], which was dismissed without action, when I reported a banned IP user. This report here is a part of the same pattern of baseless reporting, apparently in order to resolve content disagreements using this board. I do not see that I violated any rules by disagreeing with Armatura's opinion. Regarding the discussion at Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself. Also, Armatara repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, which you can see even in this report, where he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Or bad faith assumption like this? Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [33]. Grandmaster 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I heard even a single word of reflection, Grandmaster, in which case I could perhaps accept your repentance, but alas. Oh, my previous ANI discussions and the interaction ban, you're saying? (even though for 14 years of being on Wikipedia I have never been blocked from any article or topic and even though my IBAN was effectively revoked). And you reserve a right to talk about "retaliation"? Aren't you the one who used to say that no need to mention previous sanctions? Or do I have to list your previous 10 blocks, most of them in AA area, here, one by one ? Or do I need to mention that you were one of the leaders of Anti-Armenian off-wiki coordination mail-list on Russian Wikipedia? All these old crimes would not matter, of course, if only your behaviour changed. But alas, you have not learnt the lesson in two decades. You do not hear when people tell you are wrong. You don't retract your POV even when it is ridiculously, apparently wrong, such as citing EPRESS.AM pile of blog-style lunacy and extreme profanity as an "example of Armenian media". Because you physically cannot. And good faith is not enough, competence and basic skill is required to edit controversial topics of Wikipedia, others should not clean the mess you create constantly. --Armatura (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks from 15 years ago? Or incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki? The interaction ban that I mentioned was placed on you less than a year ago. The rest is more bad faith assumption and personal attacks, which I'm not going to comment on. Grandmaster 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never done anything like you did (and been rightly blocked for, inclusive of BAD-faith off-wiki coordination), and if you want to hang on a single IBAN as a last hope, please be conscientious enough to mention that it was effectively rescinded (search my name here and see why). What amazes me, though, that speaking in your defense, you chose not to reflect on your own actions AT ALL, and instead focused shooting random targets as if this was some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Armatura (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When you try to push some nonsense as "an example of Armenian media", do you even pay attention that it is an alleged non-identifiable Facebook post of a non-identifiable person in a blog with non-identifiable registration, with genial passages like this "кочевых варваров-вампиров" ("nomadic barbarian-vampires" - about Azerbaijanis), "так и надо, имел я город и маму турок" (they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother), etc? You just Google-dig a blog at some internet-sewer that publishes extreme sexual profanity and you present it as "an example of Armenian media" to prove your point? And you want others to simply swallow and not even dare to criticise your actions because you will backfire with badfaith accusation? You focus on "even an Armenian journalist" to prove a point, but an Armenian village head's account published by a reliable neutral non-Armenian source is unreliable for you and so it has to be removed? And you want those double standards to be respected?--Armatura (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board asking to ban your opponent looks like overreaction. Profanity is not prohibited in wiki articles. However, as I said, this source was not intended for use in the article, I showed it to you just as an illustration that the analogy is made by Armenian news outlets too. If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam. As for the village head, how qualified is he to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But when you restored it, I left it at that. Grandmaster 10:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you still defending that sh*thole and calling it "Armenian news outlet"? You know there is a limit to your WP:CRUSH, and it shouldn't be tolerated, especially in ANI.
    If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam - Oh who could've thought, another great example. Institute for War and Peace Reporting isn't an "Armenian news outlet" though, is it? I like how the premise changes as we go further lol. From the article:
    • "IWPR was founded in 1991 under the name Yugofax initially a newsletter that reported on the troubling developments throughout the Balkans from a balanced perspective. As the conflict developed into an all out war, Yugofax newsletter changed its name to Balkan War Report."
    And btw, IWPR's "Armenian reporter" isn't part of the Armenian media either. As a simple example, when New York Times publishes an article by an Italian reporter/journalist of theirs, that doesn't make New York Times Italian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that IWPR was Armenian. I even linked to IWPR wiki page. Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The premise both in talk and in here is whether Armenian media used the term or not. When you were shown that your "Armenian media" is some sh*thole website with randmo self-proclaimed "Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука (Ruben Vardazaryan from Facebook)] author, you reply with some cope out one liner to me. When one says, If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam, you are supposed to show an actual legitimate Armenian media source, which was the whole point of the discussion, and which you failed to do, pushing your WP:CRUSH relentlessly. I can't believe I have to lay down all of this like I'm talking to a child, I don't believe that you don't understand all of this after so much talk, and I'm just struggling to assume good faith at this point.
    Btw, I like that you weren't bothered by all the anti-Azeri/Turkic sentences in the article and by its rando nobody author, but I guess one goes "blind" when the article says FRINGE "Hydrogenic bomb dropped on Agdam" nonsense, or when you can suggest it as "Armenian media outlet", so long as it helps your POV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you chill out. Neither one of you is helping your own case by continuing to argue here, it just pisses everyone off. There's clearly a lot going on here, just wait until an administrator gets around to assessing this situation. Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang Armatura created an RfC at Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" about highly-charged language with a definite POV. There is no ...neutrally worded, short and simple statement to start the RfC. Armatura instead advocates for their interpretation of the sourcing of the dispute. Armatura then WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by disputing every post that Grandmaster makes. Their OP here compounds the issue by making charges here that are poorly-supported by their presented diff's. the hyperbole of: The fact that epress.am does not even have contacts, an editor, domain registration details, literally ANYTHING to make it an media outlet, that it is full of taboo words and incomprehensible profanity... belong at RSN if they wish to challenge GM's statement of This is published at Epress.am, which is a media outlet in Armenia. It is not a behavioral issue but rather mundane sourcing dispute and GM's statement and overall behavior have been very neutrally-worded. Although it takes two to tango, this complaint shows that the disruptive behavior is more a result of Armatura's editing and probably deserves an WP:ARBAA2 partial block. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Striking per ZaniGiovanni's statement and input. I did not read back far enough for the prior discussion. I still believe that Armatura has poorly reacted but no sanctions are indicated. Both editors should leave the talk page alone and let the RfC ply out with other editors input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If there is to be a witch hunt, it should be done by professional witch hunters at Arbitration Enforcement who have experience in dealing with the refighting of wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I was following this discussion, contemplating whether to comment or not, but the out-of-context stuff posted here is just too much.
    1) Eggishorn I would kindly ask you to strike that "boomerang" proposal per the following - We actually had a talk discussion in Agdam prior to the RfC, see "Hiroshima of Caucasus" phrase promotion. You see, when talk consensus was actually against Grandmaster, Grandmaster himself suggested that RfC, for the reason unknown to me. And Armatura, even though having clear talk consensus, agreed for an RfC and opened it. This is not the first time Grandmaster suggests an RfC when talk consensus is against his POV btw, see Involved close overturned, discussion re-opened in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Grandmaster didn't bet an eye when their past colleague from ru-wiki (so much for the incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki) inappropriately closed that discussion as an involved party, but he momentarily "suggested an RfC" (again) when the close was correctly overturned by an admin. Please don't make such BOLD proposals without knowing the context.
    2) Grandmaster showing that vulgar blog website as "even Armenia media uses the phrase" is highly inappropriate. EPRESS.AM isn't "the Armenian media", it's a lunatic blog and that particular "article" was posted by some rando from facebook. What is even more inappropriate, though, is Grandmaster's continual defense of that website and trying to pass it as a legitimate part of Armenian media, which it's not. See what constitutes WP:RS. That, and pardon my French, sh*thole website shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. But no, you see an editor with almost 20 year account age like Grandmaster somehow doesn't see that, they kept defending it as "Armenian media" despite Armatura patiently explaining that this sh*thole of a website isn't a "media" of anything, and it can't be shown as an "example of term usage in Armenian media". The WP:CRUSH here is just unbelievable.
    Just my two cents for now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseless accusations again. Since when proposing an RFC is a violation of rules or misconduct? In fact, RFC is a preferable solution, because allows to make decisions not by a small group of editors, but by the wider Wikipedia community. What exactly is wrong with that? In fact, the admin who kindly assisted on another page with relisting and converting merge vote into an RFC himself advised that RFC would be a recommended option: [34], so I have no idea why ZaniGiovanni claims that proposing an RFC on either of the two pages was some sort of a disruptive move on my part. And then I'm again being accused of not reacting to closing of merge discussion by another user, despite Armatura making the same accusation against me at that page, [35] and being advised to stop it: [36] Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was very interesting how you were so quick to react with RfC suggestions both times, given context, no accusation yet in this case just noting. And admins can speak for themselves. If they disagree with me given the context I've shown here, they're free to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RFC as usual solution for such situations was mentioned in this comment by the admin, to which I responded by supporting the idea of RFC. Yet I'm facing with more bad faith accusations for just accepting the advice. Grandmaster 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merges are explicitly not appropriate for RfCs per WP:RFCNOT. And another admin actually posted that clarification in the article's talk page, see comment by Redrose64. Looks like I was right all along, and an RfC shouldn't have been opened for that merger.
    And FYI, not sure how you've missed this too, the admin who overturned that inappropriate closure was fine either way. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I wasn't aware of that information page at the time (I mean, I knew it existed, but I forgot about that part), I still think it's the better option, to convert this overturned MERGEPROP into an RfC. That extension (~30 days instead of ~7) and expansion (better advertised) helps in several ways, not least being that the involved close happened in Oct. In any case, this was a logged WP:ACDS action, so I think that affords me the discretion to do it that way. El_C 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, though, how I ended up using the highly bureaucratic DS to WP:NOTBURO it hard. As always, I am immune to irony. El_C 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Kelownatopdog

    This user is making personal attacks in his edits accusing people of vandalism and being Hindu nationalists. He has also removed many user discussions on Jhatka’s talk page and inserted more personal attacks against people on there. Kindly take a look at it. 2605:8D80:626:1CB3:3D3B:CB63:BB5E:AFEC (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Last edit was six days ago, so to us, this is a stale dispute. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone over their contributions, and given some advice their talk page on some issues with their editing. I reserve judgement for now on whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or not, as I saw some things which were very concerning, but also some decent work as well, which definitely mitigated the concerns for now. I hope they won't end up back here, but I wouldn't be greatly surprised if they did. I recommend that this be closed with the outcome as "user warned". Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:644:8D81:8690:D4F:EA31:7031:CB4E NOTHERE (racism and personal attacks)

    [37] Holy smokes, this IP posted one of the most grossly offensive things I've seen in my years here, additionally engaging in personal attacks by calling editors triggered libs and ratfucks. And their response after being warned does not bode confidence that they'll learn from this [38]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I opted to go through here instead of AIV since rev suppression is probably preferred. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the IP for 3 months. I get that people are probably going to disagree with me, but I don't think we should be using revision deletion so often. Someone else can revision delete it if they really want to, but this looks like some edgelord trying to get a rise out of people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly don't disagree with you. Deb (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Edgelord"? Wow. I just learned a new synonym for "troll". Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're just infected with the internet and the lack of consequences related to posting such stuff. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a new one on me too, but it seems to fit. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure it suggests doing so somewhere in WP:DENY, and that policy was basically written with this sort of nonsense in mind? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility of User:Nil Einne

    Close before User:Armduino meets WP: BOOMERANG; nothing indicated that User:Nil Einne (or User:SandyGeorgia, for that matter) has done anything wrong... (non-admin closure) SN54129 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    I'm saddened that User:Nil Einne was less than courteous in his messages to me on my talk page. I don't in general seek conflict and wish the OP would apologize and rewrite his complaint. OP's use of "irrelevant crap" is IMHO harsh language and, especially in light of the fact that OP failed to indicate what content was deemed by a highly subjective process to earn that label, should be withdrawn. Armduino (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Armduino: I incorrectly assumed from your edit summaries that you'd know which article I was talking about and so didn't bother to mention it. I shouldn't have done that and I apologise for not making it clearer earlier. However as I mentioned on your talk page, if you needed clarification you could have just asked rather than opening this ANI. And I won't be withdrawing my comment.

    You do keep adding irrelevant crap about some random apparently non notable living person to an article about someone else [39] [40]. I admit when I wrote that, I assumed you also added a fair amount of the significant information about the subject's again apparently non notable brother that I [41] (and others?) removed. Looking at the history [42]/[43], it seems most of it was already in the article when you started. Still you did move that stuff around [44] [45], rewrote it and even added a small amount [46] rather than remove it, or at least just leave it be for someone else to deal with, as you should have. Just because the information is mentioned in the same source doesn't mean it's acceptable to add it to an article on some other person.

    Besides irrelevant stuff about other living people, you also added to two different articles [47] [48] that someone prejudiced the outcome of a trial when the source [49] did not say such a thing. Which is in some ways worse albeit affecting a highly notable individual so I admit doesn't cause such a strong concern to me personally.

    BLP violations are unacceptable and you keep making them. I'd note BLP aside, while writing this I noticed you also added the subject heading "Harassment by the CBSA" [50] a clear violation of WP:NPOV since the sources do not remotely support using such a characterisation in wikivoice.

    Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Armduino, you have your apology now; [51] this wasn’t worth opening an ANI over.
    Nil Einne, remember when I got hauled to ANI for using the word “darn”? Now you have for using the word “crap”. So we both know what to avoid in the future.
    Armduino, the irrelevant content you are adding to BLPs is referred to in Wiki-speak as WP:UNDUE; please stop adding UNDUE material to BLPs, and take more care with NPOV and source-to-text integrity on content you add. WP:BLP policy is to be taken seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Addition of OR and SYNTH and copyrighted material

    User:Aramaram159 has been adding SYNTH and OR to Aramaic original New Testament theory (see the recent history of the article). The user has so far no communicated, and has ignored my three warnings. @Ymblanter: has masked 8 revisions of the user on this page for copyright infringement. The user needs to be blocked, and for good measure I think Aramaic original New Testament theory should be protected. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ymblanter: I guess you should remove it and mask all revisions until now, then. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but it might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the book by Torey, but there is no text from it in the current version. Ig you mean Norton, who is extensively ciyed, that book was published in the UK, and then we need the death date - which I could not easily locate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: I was also talking about the book of Torrey, whose very long quote begins with "Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic" and is currently in the article. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks.  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Neel.arunabh's competence issues

    The community has decided to ban Neel.arunabh from Wikipedia for lack of editing competence. WP:CBAN provides that "for site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours"; this condition is met in this case. Sandstein 10:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

     Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081 § Neel.arunabh

    A few months ago there was a discussion here about Neel.arunabh's editing and general competence issues focusing on two particular incidents, in that case nominating an article for deletion so that they could use the AFD to ask for help with formatting a table, and reverting articles to years old versions undoing loads of work and hundreds of edits because articles weren't displaying properly on their phone. That discussion was closed after discussion fizzled out with no action, but I think there is a need to have a discussion about Neel.arunabh's fundamental competency to edit here because they are making a huge number of time wasting edits and seem to have issues accepting community consensuses that they don't agree with personally.

    Earlier today they submitted two requests to have WP:Protection policy unprotected [52] [53]. Both these requests have the utterly stupid rationale that "the page about protection shouldn't be protected" - not only does this have no basis in policy whatsoever it also makes no sense if given a second of thought - what on earth would be the benefit of unprotecting a highly visible troll magnet policy page?

    A few weeks ago Neel.arunabh posted a question on the computing help asking why their Facebook app wasn't working and why a mobile game they played wasn't giving daily challenges anymore [54]. A number of editors wasted their time explaining that Wikipedia isn't Facebook, no one can fix the game or their app and that they needed to ask Facebook for support. They seem to have been completely unable to understand that no-one here could help them because a a few days ago they posted about the exact same issue at the teahouse [55] bemoaning that in the three weeks since they posted at the reference desk no-one had fixed their Facebook and that they thought posting at the teahouse would get it fixed because it has "higher visibility". "Can Wikipedia fix my Facebook" is the kind of stuff that newbies who've been here a few weeks post, an editor of six years tenure should know better.

    Neel.arunabh seems to have serious issues accepting the opinions of other editors when consensus is against them and resorts to edit warring, disruptive editing and bludgeoning the process to get what they want. For one example look at the move history of I Love NY (2015 film). Neel.arunabh has decided that they don't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a 6 year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. They started by performing a series of cut and paste moves, see the edit history of this redirect, for example, [56]. Once that failed they tried to use the page move function to move the page to a different title [57], this was reverted and the page was moved protected. They have then spent the last 5 years opening various move requests for the page, basically the entire talk page of the article is move requests started by Neel.arunabh that were rejected by the community [58]. Today they've had another go at getting the page moved to another title, firstly they requested that the move protection (that was put in place because of their actions) be removed so they could move the page [59]. Secondly they filed a technical request to have the page moved, again without any sign of having a clue what they're doing. First of all they claimed that this is an "uncontroversial" move, something that is patently false, and secondly they were asking to revert a 6 year old move that occurred in the middle of their move war as an "undiscussed move" [60]. They then filed yet another requested move on the talk page asking to move the film away from it's actual title.

    If you need another example of Neel.arunabh bludgeoning the process have a look at the redirect 🍜. Neel.arunabh decided that they wanted this to point at Ramen, and so they embarked upon a campaign of bludgeoning redirects for discussion until they got what they wanted. They first nominated this rediect for discussion in July 2020 [61] which closed as soft redirect to Wiktionary. They then re-nominated the redirect in August 2020 which closed no consensus for their proposal [62]. They nominated the redirect again in December 2020 [63], which again closed with no consensus for their proposal, despite them trying to do an WP:INVOLVED close their own RFD with the result they wanted [64]. Finally they nominated the redirect again in July 2021 which finally closed with the result they wanted [65]. Four RFD discussions about the same redirect in the span of a year is just ridiculous coming from one editor.

    There are a load of other things I could bring up, like this AFD [66] where they turned a discussion about a scientific unit into a weird rant about their "female friends" and resorted to pinging random confused people about a discussion they had no involvement in, or all manner of things that they've collected talk page warnings for over they years but this report is already really long. Fundamentally I think that despite having been here for 6 years Neel.arunabh is disruptively clueless about huge parts of Wikipedia policy and guidance. Their contributions here, especially in administrative areas, are disruptive, and they seem to be unable to accept consensus against them. For the overall good of the project I think a block is required, per WP:CIR 192.76.8.88 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    break

    I have very few competence issues, but I learn from them. Back in May, I tried moving Tholi Prema (2018 film) to Toliprema just because of DaxServer's example on Talk:Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam#Requested move 8 May 2021. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and you caused a discussion to have to take place because you moved it away from the WP:COMMONNAME, and they reverted your move. Not sure why you brought that up, that isn't helping your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I learn from every mistake I make. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's less helpful than you realize, if you keep making more, new mistakes that are very similar, telling us you didn't learn much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting, as it may be relevant, that I have opened a discussion at RFD regarding 41 redirects created by Neel.arunabh. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was definitely long, but actually pretty concise, there is just a lot of material to cover. I tend to agree that this is a serious WP:CIR issue, and it seems to be having a parasitic effect on the encyclopedia. I would support a block. We aren't therapy, and time is simply too precious to be wasted this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I was considering opening a discussion following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_12#Yaraana_(2014_film), as the inability to evaluate English-language sources demonstrated by their participation in that discussion is a serious problem. To add to these concerns, Neel.arunabh has admitted to copying other editor's comments to guide their participation in talk page discussions. While a degree of mimicry may be appropriate, the error that Neel.arunabh was apologizing for in this discussion suggests that they are in fact copying comments whole-cloth and then lightly editing, in this case leaving in text that was only relevant to the specific arguments of the discussion from which the response was copied (I believe a similar exchange in an RfD discussion that I had with them but have not gone hunting for this diff). This behavior raises concerns about both English-language comprehension and potentials for copyright infringement in mainspace. I think that a CIR block would be reasonable, and Neel.arunabh's response above (I have very few competence issues, but I learn from them) does not inspire confidence a) that their English difficulties are behind them or b) that they are capable of reliably recognizing when and where their English falls short. signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do learn from every mistake I make and I do not repeat the same mistake again. See the first time I was blocked. That was because I kept removing essential references from pages because of reference errors and started edit warring. Now, I do not delete references. I was recently blocked for edit warring over a different theme. I no longer perform copy and pate page moves. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The report here details you reporting your facebook issues, and after it was explained that that was a mistake, you then did it again at the teahouse. If you learn from every mistake, why did you do that twice? MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I grow up to make more helpful edits. My own move-war that was contested by an RM has been the been the main inspiration behind my current RM at I Love NY (2015 film), because now I have learned what is WP:COMMONNAME and to look for the spelling in English language reliable sources and not on fan-made posters. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The thing about "protection page shouldn't be protected" reads to me as nothing more than a joke and can probably be ignored. (Would make a good WP:APRILFOOLS candidate though). No comment on the other issues presented at this time. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:7527:31CC:E739:B1A (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear, the diffs I provided in the OP are just a small selection of problematic behaviours from Neel.arunabh, it is in no way comprehensive and I could easily have quadrupled the size of the report (but then no-one would have bothered to read it). I didn't even mention things like their abusive sockpuppetry and logged out editing as OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 108.35.3.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which they used to do things like remove speedy deletion templates from pages they had created [67] [68] (coincidentally the same set of redirects @BilledMammal: has just nominated for deletion, double voting in the RFD about 🍜 [69] and edit warring across a number of articles. I could also bring up things like this move review, which they seemed to open not to contest the result of the discussion but because they wanted someone to explain policy to them [70]. I could also provide a huge number of diffs of them edit warring across a huge number of pages, look at the histories of 🙏, 🙏🏼 and 🙏🏿 for example [71] [72] [73]. There are also their disastrous attempts to fix things, like "fixing" reference errors by deleting references and content from articles. They claim above that they stopped doing this in 2015 after a block for edit warring, something that is patently false as a look at their talk page will show them collecting more warnings for the same behaviour in 2017 [74] and 2020 [75], in the last one they ask "how am I supposed to fix reference errors except by reverting the page to an old version" - someone with this little clue shouldn't be trying to fix reference errors, in fact they shouldn't be editing at all. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit that cracks like "I am just saying that I will not accept one thing unless I get other things as well" don't fill me with confidence. Something that Neel.arunabh seems to have a hard time with generally is the premise that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, that sometimes one is on the losing side of consensus, and that the thing to do if one is is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember the endless disruption around the ramen redirect. I also remember this bizarre incident. Granted, it's pretty old, but it doesn't really inspire confidence that the user should be editing here. Spicy (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a WP:CIR block or ban. Like Rosguill, I was wanting to open a discussion after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Yaraana (2014 film) but am currently too busy to put together anything of substance right now. As an RfD regular, I can say with certainty that his contributions there are disruptive and a net negative. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned above, I do not make as many disruptive edits and have learned what is WP:COMMONNAME and to look for the spelling in English language reliable sources and not on fan-made posters. And I will start warning other users one day. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can now add borderline canvassing attempts (Special:Diff/1066490896) to the list of problematic behaviors. The two comments made in this diff also once again display a poor command of English to the point that it interferes with his ability to make or understand arguments, coupled with rote repetition of common RfD phrases. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neel.arunabh has decided that they don't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a 6 year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. It is not true that I am on a 6 year crusade. After, Talk:I Love NY (2015 film)#Requested move 11 July 2017, I have been convinced that "2015 film" is permissible under Wikipedia article title policies and per WP:NCF. However, in May, I started move-warring over a film title spelling, and that was contested in an RM by Ab207. So, now I am learning about WP:COMMONNAME and my current requested move at Talk:I Love NY (2015 film) is to get it moved to the WP:COMMONNAME without anymore move wars. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, would you prefer me to amend the statement to Neel.arunabh decided that they didn't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a multi year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. It took about half a dozen reverted moves, a block for move waring, the page being admin level move protected due to their disruption and three RM discussions over the course of two years where not a single person agreed with any of the titles they proposed for them to even consider that policy and other editors disagreed with the move.? Do you think that's a fair summary? You also haven't addressed a single one of the other issues people have raised here apart from repeatedly saying "I've learned, I've learned, I wont be disruptive in future". You've had 5 years of talk page warnings, and haven't paid attention to any of them. If you want more examples why did you move Naina (song) to Naina (Arijit Singh song), we have only one article on a song by this name, so by policy the article should be located at the "(song)" disambiguation. Why did you move Daava to Daava (film)? This is the only article on something we have called "Darva" so it should be located at the base title. Why did you draftify Daava and Fareb (1996 film), WP:DRAFTIFY is clear that only newly created articles are eligible for draftification - these articles had existed for years, and the rationale you gave - "no recent sources" - has no basis in any kind of policy. Why did you move Arjun Pandit (1999 film) and Fareb (1996 film) to the date when they were re-released? Policy is that films are disambiguated based on original release date. Even worse the titles you moved them to weren't even the dates that they were re-released, because you were guessing based upon the release date of articles on unreliable sources. It is blatantly obvious that you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing, and almost all of your contributions consist of you making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes. You obviously lack either the competence or maturity to edit here, and a block is needed to prevent other editors having to waste any more time cleaning up after you. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree about amending the statement. The reason why I moved Naina (song) to Naina (Arijit Singh song) was because there are many other songs titles "Naina", bu I appreciate your request at WP:RM/TR. And I will not waste anymore people's time. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you don't disagree with the statement I made at WP:RM/TR and agree with moving the article back then why on earth did you contest the move by opening a WP:RM where you endorse reverting your own move, stealing and slightly editing the statement I made [76]? What the Fuck are you doing? Do you understand what requested moves is for? This is a completely inappropriate use of the requested moves process, has yet again resulted in other editors having to run around cleaning up the mess you've made. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to self-revert my move. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • So the problems here with your editing:
              1. Requested moves is for "Controversial" or "Contested" moves - if I suggest moving a page and you agree there is no need to go through a week long discussion at requested moves
              2. I had already started the process for getting the page moved, there was no reason at all for you to start another process for moving the page. Running multiple processes at once just wastes everyone's time.
              3. You started the requested move after the page had already been moved back to the original title
              4. You copied my statement from the technical requests page and passed it off as your own. This is creepy, a copyright violation and seriously beings into question your competence to edit if you can't express simple thoughts in your own words.
              5. Your unnecessary requested move was picked up by the bot and added to the list of requested moves. The person who did the technical request had to fuck about cleaning up the mess that you made, turning a 30 second job into several minutes of clean-up.
              I said that your editing here consisted of making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes., to which you said that you would avoid wasting people's time. Less than an hour later you were wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes resulting in a mess that other people have had to clean up. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just once, back in 2016, I edited a part of a user's comment. The edit was reverted, and I no longer edit people's comments er WP:ETIQUETTE. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And please see my message on Ab207's talk page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. User clearly does not understand what they're doing wrong and, despite statements to the contrary, seem determined to keep behaving this way. Net-negative to the project, whether it's due to competence or other issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, it's funny, I actually didn't get the RfD ping, because Neel misspelled my name Tazmin, and it doesn't send a ping when you correct a name in a message. Instead I found this thread because I'd checked out his talkpage after wondering why I'd seen the same user behaving strangely at two places in two days, as I was the one who declined the RM/TR request. Not knowing the full context, I had been a bit bemused by the notion that a protected-for-move-warring page could be casually moved because one person felt there was a clear correct title. (It did not cross my mind that the move protection, six years ago, might have been because of the same editor.) I was then a bit annoyed by this post-reply edit that made my cross-post from RM/TR to RFPP retroactively ambiguous. Now, when it comes to the set of redirects that I was (meant to be) pinged about, I actually think those are reasonable creations—maybe meriting deletion, I'm not sure, but not CIR-indicative. However, everything else presented here makes me feel like this is one of those situations where it would not be a good use of the project's resources to continue trying to make this editor understand our policies and norms. I have a lot of patience for people who struggle to get some things, if they're willing to listen to advice they're given. That does not seem to be the case here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that more than enough patience has been expended waiting for this editor to learn from his/her mistakes. It's time to give up on him/her. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To all those supporting a block. I make at least some edits per week without any CIR issues. That's extremely high for me to learn from my CIR mistakes and so very clearly this is something all admins need. A block is the exact worst thing we can do for users here - our job is to educate people to contribute constructively and we don't do that by blocking the user and making them (if they are lucky) unhelpful users. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      FTR, no, our job is not to endlessly spend volunteer resources trying to teach editors to contribute constructively. At some point we have to move on, and the fact that you would argue this is not helping your case. valereee (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it possible a p-block from article space would allow this user some more room/time to develop competence? I do see that some of the disruption has occurred in other spaces. valereee (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • CIR doesn't magically disappear with a partial block, it just changes addresses. Article space is the only reason we are here, after all. The rest of these back pages are only to support articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Valereee: given that the last ANI thread was about them using AFD to ask for tech support, I've provided numerous diffs of them bludgeoning processes and wasting time at the help desk, two admins have weighed in that their contributions at RFD are disruptive and "a net negative" and that even while this thread was ongoing they've managed to make a mess of moving a page I don't have much confidence that that's a viable solution here. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, both. Whenever I see a user who seems to be sincerely trying to attain competency, I'd like to figure out a way to let that happen. But, yeah. @Neel.arunabh, indefinite blocks aren't necessarily permanent. If you're blocked you can consider contributing more carefully at some other wikimedia project to see if you can develop the necessary competence and appeal here in a year or so. valereee (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valereee I am sure that some users can trust me like Tamzin above.
      The last time, when I went to AfD, then wbm1058 suggested that I go to WP:VPT. But by mistake, I went to WP:VPR. This was when I was in the previous ANI thread. Then, after a couple of talk page discussions, I finally went to WP:VPT. So, wbm1058 can trust me to participate in the correct place.
      Talk:The Weeknd/Archive 2#Layout, Back in February 2021, I was making edits to The Weeknd and Osh33m was busy reverting Walter Görlitz's and my edits to their own preferred version. Then, Osh33m was blocked for edit-warring. Osh33m finally brought the sections back to my contribution. So, Osh33m can also trust me on Wikipedia. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I... If your reading of my comment is that I trust you, then I think that says more about competence issues than anything else here. And that sounds really mean but I don't know how else to put it. Neel, I know this isn't a pleasant position to be in, but I think sometimes a person reaches a point where they just have to accept that what they want from Wikipedia and what Wikipedia wants from them are not going to match up. You've had six years and 4,000 edits to learn the basics, and still haven't... Maybe this just isn't the right hobby for you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin I have learned the basics. Community editing is definitely the right hobby for me. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block; I was particularly convinced by MrOllie noting that they did not learn from their mistake of using Wikipedia as Facebook tech support.
    I suspect that English is not their first language; it may be beneficial for them to edit on their native language Wikipedia before appealing here, as the language barrier may be why they have struggled to gain competence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal I totally disagree with you. I know English more than any other language. And I will make more useful contributions on English language sites. This is not just on Wikipedia or any sister site. See my StackExchange profile. Even on StackExchange, I ask useful questions. Your statement above I suspect that English is not their first language is a violation of WP:PA. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting this warning that they just placed on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And suddenly I find myself feeling less bad about supporting a ban here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neel.arunabh: your StackExchange history is pretty bad too. For example, the December 16 2021 question https://spanish.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4442/my-recent-question, where you were counseled for plagiarism in asking your question. If you think that is evidence of asking useful questions, I suggest you carefully reread what people wrote to you in StackExchange. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    rsjaffe Only one instance, I was counseled for plagiarism. But I have asked some useful questions at https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/14005/why-do-south-asians-often-use-lakhs-and-crores-instead-of-millions-what-i and many others. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that they have now removed their warning, and the three responses that were made to it, which does seem to reinforce suggestions that they don't understand guidelines like WP:TPO. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal I have struck my warning and have restored the responses. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: They've been doing the same thing in this conversation, e.g. this edit [77] where they moved one of their comments and added a fake timestamp to make it look like it was said in reply to the comments added after it. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neel.arunabh: No, I suspect that English is not their first language is not a personal attack, quite the opposite. Lots of people here (including myself) have first languages other than Engish, and that is not a negative characteristic. When an editor clearly has difficulties understanding how things work at English Wikipedia, one possible reason is that their command of English isn't quite strong enough; suggesting that your problematic edits might be caused by your misunderstanding guidelines and instructions because English is a second language for you is in fact assuming that you edit in good faith. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they are proceeding to spam WP:RFD with poorly thought out copy paste votes, including claiming that two redirects created in 2010 and 2009 would fall under WP:R3, a criteria that only applies to recently created redirects (emphasis is in original policy) [78] [79]. Upon being called out on this they have misleadingly edited their original vote [80]. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a helpful vote here. I never copy and paste votes. Statements like "Delete per nom" are universal statements used regularly by deletion discussion participants. If I nominate a page for deletion, I would vote "Delete as nominator". Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am making more helpful votes here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neel.arunabh: "per nom" is not a useful vote. In fact it is listed in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as an example of the exact kind of useless pile on voting that doesn't add anything to the discussion - WP:PERNOM. If you were putting time and effort into writing your votes why on earth did you vote Keep per Tamzin, Walter Görlitz, and Walter Görlitz [81] Did you not notice that you mentioned the same person twice? Why did you propose to delete redirects under a speedy deletion criteria that obviously did not apply? Why did you edit your comment in a misleading way that made other comments meaningless? You were literally just telling Tavix that you understand everything now, your competence issues are solved and that you'll stop being disruptive, then you instantly go and start disrupting RFD with more incompetent editing. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to compete better at RfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Compete? This ain't a competition! You would think given your active disruption that you would stop digging yourself a deeper hole, but you just...keep...digging. School 25 is a perfect example of that: you say that there is no school with that name, but that is demonstrably false with a very basic search. Your next contribution, the Political conflict RfD is also quite the opposite of helpful. If you had read the discussion that took place, or clicked the link you placed, it would tell you that the section you want the redirect retargeted to no longer exists. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying hard with RfD statements. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've stealth-edited your Political conflict !vote after Tavix' comment above, as well as thre of the !votes 192 took issue with [82] [83] [84], after I complained above about you doing that at WP:RFPP/D. (I actually think "per nom" is a forgivable misunderstanding of a rather subtle XfD norm that has more to do with who's !voting and when they !vote than about what's said... But the constant stealth edits are another sign of just not getting it.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    This might be a bit premature, but: User:Neel.arunabh seems to be unable to contribute here without causing major issues which take up excessive amounts of community time, or in other words "are a net-negative". Their answers to questions have been evasive (whether intentionally or not) and unsatisfactory, and have only served to make their issues even clearer. Their behaviour is at best indicative of a lack of competence and at worst, plain old trolling and deliberate timewasting. Since we assume good faith, I'll say its the former. But these issues show no sign of being resolved and this discussion is steadily turning into a waste of time, energy and resources for all involved, with no real signs from Neel.arunabh that they properly understand the issues raised.

    Therefore: It is proposed that User:Neel.arunabh be indefinitely site banned per WP:CIR.

    Mako001 (C)  (T)  04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I said above, I have some sympathy for Neel—although less so since the absurd warning to BilledMammal—but think it would be best if he found another hobby; and if he can't see that, a ban is the only way to compel it. I say "find another hobby" because, yes, indefinite ≠ infinite, but when issues like this persist for 6 years, it's unlikely to be the sort of case where a few years away from the wiki is all someone needs in order to return as a constructive editor. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support User was given chances for many years WP:CIR. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and honestly if I'd come across this discussion as an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked already based on the discussion above the formal proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the huge amount of disruption and history of questionable edits detailed above. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ~ i clicked many (not all, 'tis true) of the links above; on the basis of what i have seen there and, most especially, Neel.arunabh's behaviour in this very ANI section, i'm afraid that the English WP is not currently the place for them. There are lots of other places to practise the community editing desired and, who knows, maybe one day the required competence will be achieved and demonstrable and we can say, "Welcome back!". Till then, sorry. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: It's regrettable, and certainly I've seen far more combative behaviors at ANI than Neel.arunabh's, but what I was thinking earlier was that Neel.arunabh could use a mentor. And then I thought, wait, who's going to take on THAT hot mess? Me? Oh dear me no. Sooner or later, people need to learn how to edit here, where to find the rules, endeavor to follow the rules, and not make more work for other editors than their contributions are worth. Hundreds of thousands of editors manage not to be those hot messes, and never find themselves at ANI. (Never mind the extremely thin skin it takes to interpret "I suspect English is not his first language" as a PA, and to drop a Level 4 warning for it.) Six years is far more time than we should have had to wait. Ravenswing 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Even the "contrary" comment below shows a lack of understanding of the problems. Frankly, I do not care if an editor posts a question about Facebook at the Teahouse. That forum can handle it because it is designed for newbie questions. I'm also not sure how relevant the "I have never used talk pages as a forum" comment is. As far as I can tell, no one is accusing Neel of doing that? On the other hand, there are so many issues that are of substance that have not even begun to be addressed: misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, canvassing, bludgeoning discussions, filing excessive and/or irrelevant XfDs and RMs, ignorance of how consensus works, an inability to drop the stick, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tavix I do understand sources. I do not edit war anymore. I will not canvass random people. I will not bludgeon anymore discussions. I will propose only relevant XfDs and RMs. I know how consensus works. I can drop the stick. See my latest correction I made in Philosophy. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that edit you managed to completely break the formatting of the bottom half of the article because you moved the "Columns start" template to be after the "columns end" template. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the "outline of philosophy" article isn't really about the history of philosophy, that link would be better placed in the "see also" section. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, as it turns out, is where it was before you started editing [85]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally per the documentation at Template:Portal#Location Portal links are supposed to be placed at the top of the "see also" section, not the external links section, so it was right before you moved it. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'd seen this thread earlier, and assumed that Neel.arunabh was a young, inexperienced contributor who needed time to learn how everything works around here. Having now seen that they have been editing since 2015 (my fault for not reading more carefully earlier) it is obvious that isn't the case, and that instead we are looking at someone who may have good intentions, but simply lacks the necessary skills to contribute in a positive manner. They've been given more than enough time to show evidence that they are capable of learning, and failed to do so. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose somewhat because of Tamzin's comment above. I say we give rope to Neel.arunabh. I suggest a 30 days block, with a welcome note(s) containing links to all the policies/guidelines. That would give them plenty of time to familiarise themselves with guidelines. But if they do something after 30 days, it should be an indeff block without any discussion. Also, I took that Naina article to AfD. You guys were having quite a fuss over a non-notable article. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Usernamekiran: I don't want to seem rude, but from what you've said above about welcomes and helpful links, you seem to believe that Neel.arunabh is new here? They've been here for 6 years and made several thousand edits, been blocked previously, given endless amounts of advice and even engaged in sockpuppetry. If you still think that WP:ROPE applies, I am open to your views on why that would be the case. Mako001 (C)  (T)  05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Neel.arunabh clearly lacks the required competence, and if they haven't gained it after all thee years, they ain't going to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      PS The thing that really took the biscuit for me was Neel.arunabh's comment[86] here at ANI I am trying to compete better at RfD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Contrary

    I disagree with Mako001 above. I will be able to contribute here without causing major issues which take up excessive amounts of community time. So, I honestly think, I should be taken out of this thread next week. I asked the Facebook question at the Teahouse because I was not aware that the Teahouse is for Wikipedia related questions, but now I am aware. I have always been aware that Wikipedia Talk Pages are not forums and I have never used a talk page as a forum. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Neel.arunabh Right at the top of the page WP:Teahouse, there is a big message box which says:

    Welcome to the Teahouse!
    A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia

    If you cannot read and understand that prominent and simple introduction, then you cannot possibly be anywhere near the level of competence required to edit an encyclopedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I will remember that the TeaHouse is "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had any trace of the skill required to productively edit an encyclopedia, then you would have been able to read and understand that simple notice first time, unaided. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Neel.arunabh posted at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia bots. GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having trampled so many of Wikipedia's fair fields, Neel has just asked at Teahouse how to create a bot. Please, please, put an end to the horror that is Neel. David notMD (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks by editor

    질량 분석 blocked as WP:NOTHERE. signed, Rosguill talk 07:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    질량 분석 accused me of being part of a troll army and attacked my language competence. I placed a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. They removed this as "garbage" and then posted another attack: "stop sabotaging the work of others, better learn German instead or keep quiet". I am done with this issue, please deal with this user. Pikavoom Talk 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:42812 TV unable to heed warnings or listen

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    WP:Long-term abuse/Zhmailik. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    42812 TV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    @42812 TV: popped up a few days ago and added the website TopHit for music release dates in Russia. Editors in the music project do consider TopHit a reliable source for music charts as it is backed by one of the official monitoring organisations. However 42812 Tv has been using the websites singles/songs listing page to add single release dates even though there is an established norm and consensus that WP:THIRDPARTY sources are required for songs and singles - as artists and labels often say different things about what is and isn't a song. Also being a non-notable music market (in terms of size/scope), its highly unlikely that music is released only in Russia and not elsewhere in the world when the artists in question are not Russian. I reverted the edits with edit a summaries and a number of warning on the user's page as well as attempts to explain this. The user has ignored these and reverted back, now engaging in both WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR with a number of different editors.

    Pages targeted

    The list goes on. A number of other editors have reverted and reverted back.

    Multiple warnings have been given on the user's talk page here. At this point, its beyond warnings and wonder if there is an appropriate topic ban e.g., all music pages or if we think its an overall ban? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly believe the user is also a sock puppet of Zhmailik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and many other accounts he's created to evade blocks. The behavior is similar and the edits he makes are as well. 2600:6C46:4A00:4C5:DCC9:ECDF:7E42:EF83 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not involved) - Would it be in interest to make an SPI if you believe it's a sockpuppet? SoyokoAnis - talk 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. 2600:6C46:4A00:4C5:DCC9:ECDF:7E42:EF83 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the user for 31h to reduce the damage, but a more permanent solution is likely needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: can you extend it to indef? This user is actually Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Zhmailik (compare the name with those at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zhmailik if needed). (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor DilploCult and Paolo Petrocelli

    DiploCult (talk · contribs) This editor contacted me via email sent through WP. This in an effort to get me to make Paolo Petrocelli back into an article. It is currently a redirect per this AFD[88]. There was nothing wrong with the email, it was a plea, providing many sources,in order to prove Diplocult's notability. Yes, in the email Diplocult admitted being Petrocelli.

    This is just a notification of this off wiki contact. I thought it may be necessary because-

    • Diplocult has a COI. He made four edits to the article but back in 2020.
    • Diplocult may have contacted other editors or may still do so.

    I have no plans to edit the article (Which I have never edited at all) which was last edited 3 months ago. Any administrator who would like to see the email, I'll be happy to provide a copy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2A02:A03F:E0F7:A700:5DB:7E08:1BEB:76D8/64

    TEMPORARY BLOCK
    Range blocked for 3 months for vandalism by Blablubbs. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Some nasty vandalism and personal attacks coming from 2A02:A03F:E0F7:A700:5DB:7E08:1BEB:76D8/64 (talk · contribs) since September, but no action was taken after an AIV report. Could this range be blocked? Pahunkat (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     IP blocked for three months. Thanks for reporting. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin procedural advice requested

    Please see WIR: Yara Salman - administrator advice needed?. Looks like this was initially 2016 COI multiple Admin deletions, and then Admin protected from recreation in 2021. Since that time, the WikiProject Women in Red member Lajmmoore has put forth a legitimate effort to create the article, minus the COI. I've left a message on the WIR talk page asking the blocking admins to allow this article to be published. No responses yet. If we do not get a response in a day, perhaps, how can I move this to Main Space without violating any kind of wheelwarring dictates, or anything else? Please advise, thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Maile66: For infos, of the two admins you pinged at WT:WIR, Materialscientist has tuned off "most of" their notifications, and that includes echo, while SeraphimSytem hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours. So a post to MS and SS user talks directly rather than a trip to WP:ANI seems to be the best strategy!  :) As well as notifications of this thread here, of course. SN54129 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TrangaBellam

    I had edited an article drafted by User:TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and left an unpleasant message on my talk page. They then started to nitpick several of my recent article translations from Bengali to English, mass deleting chunks of information, removing relevant citations, despite being told by other users that there is nothing wrong. I suggest looking through his recent contributions since editing my talk page and you will see majority of them are not focused on contributing to and benefiting our encyclopaedia but trying to criticise each and everything. It's totally fine to add "citation needed" comments, but their attitude is not sensible and it seems they are actively targeting me by specifically going through my recent article translations. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I scanned your contributions because of your misplaced belief that translating content from other wikis excuses you from providing citations etc. A summary of my relevant edits:
    You do realise I'm only human. If you want me to address all of this it will take time. I just created the Nur Qutb Alam article and you've already criticised it... just give some time and it will improve. Be patient, don't be aggressive when addressing, and we can go through it eventually bit by bit. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving a note at talk-page is not criticism, per se. I pointed out what is allowed as a source (and what is not) about articles concerning S. Asian History.
    The articles which were tagged by me were written by you weeks ago. Tags stay for months, before being actioned: you have no worries. But, please do not write unsourced controversial statements (like at Syeda Shahar Banu) or delete sourced content (like at Titumir). Go through the articles, you have translated and cite every line to a decent RS. Else, remove them. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • SalamAlayka, it looks to me like Tranga Bellam is trying to help you rather than "nitpicking" or "trying to criticise each and everything". You'd do yourself a favour if you listened better to their comments. Also, I don't see anything "unpleasant" about their messages on your talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    Racialist slurs at Ainu people

    I recently removed and moved some pictures in Ainu people per WP:Gallery, when suddenly a user reverted my and three others edits. I should note that I did not remove any outstanding pictures, but two paintings and one rather bad quality one. The other pictures simply got moved. Not sure what can trigger such an outburst. The edit summary is quite horrifying babbling about "pseudo white Caucasians" and "mixed breeds".[1] I seriously doubt that such terminology is acceptable, and the worldviews of an user using these terms should not be spreaded in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Last but not least, the removal of content seems disruptive and was not explained in his/her "edit summary". As such I think reporting this incident for racist terminology is a good reaction. I have also pinged the user on the talk page. A comment or sanctions should be enforced if further disruptive and racist eruptions come out of this user.-193.107.22.36 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ainu_people&type=revision&diff=1066541683&oldid=1066531774
    Vamlos (talk · contribs) editing habits and focus on race and Asia looks awfully like that of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. His 30,000 byte addition to Talk:Interracial marriage in September 2020 is truly something to behold. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without comment on the DE/NOTHERE aspect, noting that Dreamy Jazz found Vamlos Red X Unrelated to WCF at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive § 22 December 2021. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. There is a clear, uncomfortable focus on racial purity in Valmos's editing, as can be seen in this recent edit they made to Orang Asil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a fascination with race and purity, expressed in these and other edits, bespeaks a basic mindset that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. I have blocked per NOTHERE. Perhaps the user is unrelated to previous race-obsessed editors, perhaps not. At the very least we can say that a talk page full of warnings for all kinds of disruption (lack of proper edit summaries, unverified edits, poor writing, racist language in article space) have not helped. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Curbon7, my apologies for (temporarily?) removing your close: the editor has placed an unblock request. That they argue that a term used by "colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations" could still be used today in this encyclopedia is not the strongest argument, but hey, YMMV. I hope one of my fellow admins will look at the unblock request and take into account comments made here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Austronesier: suggested on my talkpage that this user is likely to be a sock of DerekHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who they contend has incorrectly been conflated with WCF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats at Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy.

    At Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy. sbelknap (talk · contribs) has cited the "Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel" events (Bollea v. Gawker) as justification for removing content from the Curtis Yarvin article on BLP grounds. This information includes a direct quote from Yarvin's blog which has been cited by two reliable sources. Yarvin and Thiel have worked together in the past, so per sbelknap, including this information is "an existential threat to wikipedia" because Yarvin's buddy might come for Wikipedia like he did for Gawker. The chilling effect issue is obvious.

    Per most reliable independent sources, Yarvin's fringe political views are the primary reason he is notable. Without those views, and sources about them, it's unlikely he would warrent an article in the first place. Failing to summarize these sources would damage the neutrality of the article.

    Previously on that talk page, sbelknap has also argued that Yarvin's father's Jewish ancestry should be mentioned via obscure primary sources. This was, apparently, intended to be an indirect counterpoint to sourced comments that he is associated with the alt-right, which is associated with antisemitism. For this, sbelknap, bizarrely, compares Yarvin to Werner Goldberg, a Nazi soldier who also had a Jewish father. Yarvin's own blog is the closest thing we have to a reliable source for his paternal grandparent's religion/ethnicity. sbelknap also cites a Daily Mail blurb about Larry Sanger as a reason to include primary sources in BLP articles.

    I consider all of these to be serious red flags.

    There are obvious BLP issues here. I have tried to explain these issues and have gotten nowhere. Considering the "existential threat" comment, I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of WP:NLT looks at this situation.

    Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In my very much non-admin opinion, this is the kind of legal threat that deserves an immediate block, for at least some time. To my mind, there is a big difference between, "this is defamatory," and "unless this article reflects my preferences, I will bankrupt Wikipedia as an associate of the article's subject famously did to a media company." People who wander into WP:NLT territory should be warned. This is not a wander; this is jumping in with both feet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something but... Where exactly is the threat here? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, sbelknap described this as an "existential threat" to Wikipedia. The idea being proposed is that Wikipedia itself will be sued into oblivion by Yarvin's patron. This threat was supported by a totally unrelated legal case brought up by someone who is chummy with Yarvin. As far as legal threats go, that's pretty direct, but even without that, it still introduces a chilling effect to suppress sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is none. :: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats quoting from section on Defamation "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." sbelknap (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have failed to explain why a direct quote of something he said, as supported by multiple reliable sources, is "defamatory". Yarvin said the quit part loud, on a blog he published himself, and reliable sources noticed that. That's not defamatory. Since you claimed that legal action was plausible, and used that threat to remove content from the article, you have made this into a much wider and more serious issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, see the diff: "This article defames Curtis Yarvin and is an existential threat to wikipedia. Interested editors can review the Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel events to understand the legal consequences of defamation to a media entity. The Curtis Yarvin article notes Yarvin's association with Peter Thiel. Being an anonymous wikipedia editor may protect that editor but that is not going to protect wikipedia itself from legal jeopardy. As one example, ... Yarvin writes, 'It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot).' ... This is grossly distorted by a journalist, and by the time it gets to this wikipedia page, it means precisely the opposite of what Yarvin intended." In addition to it being original research on Sbelknap's part to examine Yarvin's blog in search of potentially exculpatory ways to parse the latter's language—based on the transparently false premise that either Wikipedia or the reliable secondary source labelled Yarvin a "white nationalist" in the first place (they did not)—the above comment seems intended to create a "chilling effect" by raising the implication that Wikipedia itself (if not "anonymous wikipedia editor[s]" individually) will likely face "legal jeopardy" of an "existential" nature if the quote from Yarvin's blog is retained.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent of the question of whether this actually is defamatory, that is not remotely a legal threat. It's hyperbolic and overkill, but it's not a legal threat. For it to be a legal threat he would have to, well, threaten legal action. Flagging potentially defamatory content is a basic part of maintaining the encyclopedia. We have a whole series of templates for it. People should take care to not point out potential defamation in an alarmist manner, as that can be disruptive. And they should not do it as an excuse to cover up encyclopedic content, as may or may not be happening here. But it's still not a threat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of those templates. That is a useful resource. Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As one example, see the diff "Yarvin has written in support of slavery" This is not what the cited secondary source asserts and the secondary source cherry picks text from Yarvin's writings. This and other examples in the article seem to me to be clearly libelous. For BLP, it is essential that wikipedia articles be scrupulously fair. sbelknap (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legitimacy of the defamation claim is extremely important to whether or not this is a threat. sbelknap is essentially saying "it's a nice website you've got here. It would be a pity of anyone sued it for defamation". This is still a threat. In this context it can only be an attempt to preemptively derail the discussion with the veiled threat of a ruinous lawsuit. Why else would any editor of that article find background information about Hulk Hogan and a defunct gossip site relevant or helpful? If not as a "warning", why even mention it? Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the user in question has refused to explain their objections to certain material, instead simply asserting The burden is on each wikipedia editor to avoid libel. I provided links to the primary source - this is decidedly unhelpful and creates a pointless game of twenty questions. If there is material which is libelous, we should change it, but if a user is unwilling to identify their objections, they are not acting in good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, by my interpretation, Sbelknap had not yet crossed the line of WP:NLT, but they are skating very close to the line of the very thin ice and that rarely ends well. Threatening to call out the "billionaire dogs" is not an effective debating technique. Efforts to bring the article more correctly into line with what reliable sources say is commendable. Threatening and intimidating other editors, and whitewashing article conten, is utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think much of sbelknap's hyperbole, but I'm with Tamzin -- that wasn't a legal threat, and interpreting it as such suggests an overactive imagination. Especially given that breaching NFT tends to bring down no-warning indef blocks on the culprits, I feel strongly that the tocsin should never be sounded for the same on the basis of inferences, interpretations, impressions, or purported "chilling effects." "If you edit against the way I like I will sue you/call the police on you," that is a NFT-level legal threat. This? No. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have previously been sued over editing I have done on Wikipedia, and I know many other editors have as well, so this isn't an overactive imagination. This kind of thing absolutely does have a chilling effect. It drives away editors, because it should drive away editors. Good-faith volunteers to this project should not feel obligated to have to deal with that kind of thing, which is why we have a policy on legal threats. People who have experience with lawsuits know they are not always a joke or an empty threat, and that's exactly the purpose of these threats.
    What is an "NFT-level" legal threat. Do you mean NLT? Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sbelknap has a long history of repeated instances of edit wars and not good faith. He targets political and philosophy posts. See his talk page for a summary. This looks like a case for WP:BLOCKDETERRENT based on "#3 encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Boromeliad (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just have to say, I find the interpretation that this is not a legal threat gobsmacking, but as noted, I am not an admin and will leave the subtleties to wiser heads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits are mostly of medical articles, particularly for pharmacology and medicine. I have consistently acted in good faith for my edits. In 2018 I was one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. If you look through my edits, you will find that I have made some useful contributions and also that I have learned from my experiences on wikipedia, as I will endeavor to do in this case. What I have learned here is that there are templates for addressing problems of defamation and libel, and I expect I will use those in the future to communicate these problems to my fellow editors. sbelknap (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear that what you have learned is that you may freely chill speech on Wikipedia so long as your threats are veiled in the mode of "nice website you've got here, it would be a shame if something happened to it." Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Rlink2

    Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, who was blocked in 2013 indefinitely for unauthorized botting, both on and off his account. The site he has been adding as an archive URL appears to trace to the websites he added on Wikipedia before he was blocked, and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question. (Editors may also be interested in reviewing the earlier account's global contributions, where there are about dozen blocks on several wikis.)

    Currently, he operates AWB on his main account (clearly using some script to fill in website titles) as well as an authorized bot account Rlink2 Bot (contrast the declined RotlinkBot).

    My first inclination was to block for the seeming evasion, but the editor's talk page is largely without issue so far and the bot account was approved. However, given the potential COI and his main account being used for high-speed editing itself, I am left in a bit of a quandry. (A few of the other admins I discussed with seem to lean more strongly toward blocking immediately, though I'm sure they can speak for themselves.)

    Opinions sought/welcomed (or bold action if someone feels more strongly on the point). Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How am I flodding? I go at 10 edits a minute, which is consistent with other editors. Let me know how I am supposed to use the tool and what rates are acceptable. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revoke AWB access including the bot. I am fairly convinced these are the same individuals, and I believe they have some sort of stake in the archive sites (archive.today and ghostarchive.org) they are performing automated work in regards to, if not being the outright owners. I believe the main account's current AWB activity looks to be the unapproved activity proposed as a second bot activity here. Activity on eswiki should also be noted. The four RFCs on archive.is should be reviewed for historical content, including admission of Rotlink of either owning or being heavily involved in the development of Archive.is and the 2013 botting issue that resulted in over 30 cross wiki blocks. More action may be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "relationship", if anything, I have been in talks with Mark Graham of the Wayback machine in terms of possible collaboration, and we have many editors on here already working with the Internet Archive. Supposing I was related to archive.today (or otherwise), I don't think "getting" at me for that aspect alone is helpful because we have people working for archive.org as well. I have a metheology for picking archive sites to use, we have a limited amount of archive sites, and some of them do stuff that the others can't. If Wayback can't archive a site, but something else can, I don't think it's right to say I'm connected when there is a clear explanation for why I do what I do. For example, archive.today can bypass paywalls, archive.org can't. And ghostarchive.org can do Youtube videos, which up until very recently archive.org could not. And you seem to be missing my bare ref fixes that also use web.archive.org. You omit that part of the argument as well.
    Regardless, I have spent a lot of time on non archiving matters, such as fixing bare refs. There are clear differences between my and Rotlink's account (such as the fact Rotlink doesn't appear to be a native English speaker). Rotlink only added archive links, from the look of it. If the community realizes that my time spent archiving refs is not appreciated, I will stop doing it. Maybe even revoking AWB access is the right choice, even though I do review every edit I make with it. But I do not think a full on block is required. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Thanks. I know it sounds maybe a bit hard to believe, but I have no relation to Rotlink or any other past editor. For those that want to believe other wise, all I can really say is that I am willing to stop any work with alternative archive sites if that is what you all want. I didn't have any plans with alternate archive link repair for a while, since my editing plans involved filling bare refs, and then filling in the titles for "Archived Copy" (see Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title) when that was done. Both of these efforts have nothing to do with any of the alternate archive sites, and would/is taking months of my time. If using other archive sites results in COI accusations and stressful ANI threads, it is not worth the time and effort for me to keep using them, to be honest. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: when you say that Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, are you speaking with your checkuser hat on? Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, solely based on naming, behavior, and strongly overlapping interests. Izno (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Firefangledfeathers 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    All this seems to be based on the fact that you think I am Rotlink, which is not the case. Yes, the username might be similar (unfortunate coicidence when picking my username) but I have no affiliation with Rotlink whatsoever. I read the archive.today RFC before creating an account and I thought the name "Rotlink" sounded cool, so maybe it had an subconsious effect on my username. I knew someone would think that this was the case sooner rather than later, so for that reason I kinda regret choosing that username. Rlink2 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Immediately revoke AWB access and block: This user is using their account to operate an undisclosed bot. Their edits indicate that they are a meatbot. Furthermore, there is no possible chance that they are properly analysing the truly absurd number of edits that they are making. All of this is incredibly problematic, even ignoring the probable ban evasion and conflict of interest. Considering the sheer amount of disruption and other questionable actions, a block is warranted in this situation. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, sometimes I do sacafice quality for speed, especially before the new database dumps come out. This is the exception though, not the rule. And sometimes I have days off, yesterday was MLK Day, so I have more time to edit. It wasn't non stop, there were clear breaks however. I don't edit when I'm sleeping, and I don't edit when I'm at my workplace. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't have a list of bad links, I wuoldn't be constantly reverting mistakes. Also note that everytime someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I respond instantly. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't be able to respond that quickly to messages since I would be away from the computer. Rlink2 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed this user prolifically across my watchlist recently. The sheer number of edits is astounding, and indicates either a meatbot or a literal unauthorized bot. Either way, it is clear these edits are done with little or no care for their accuracy or helpfulness. To give just one example, I've noticed the addition of a template [90] which, if we go to its template page, appears to do nothing and was created on January 12th by Rlink2. I am not a template expert, but I can't see the point of adding this template which appears to do nothing to thousands of articles. And even if it does serve some sort of purpose, the total lack of documentation is wrong and must be corrected so we have some clue as to what the hell the template does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: The purpose of that template is to mark bare PDFs, since the title of those are not so easy to extract. I should have added some documentation, but didn't, sorry. The purpose is for me and other editors to categorize and then go through the PDFs that are bare. I really did (and still do) like your train articles. Rlink2 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm glad to see it does serve a purpose (and that you like my articles), please add some documentation though. I am not convinced you are related to Rotlink, particularly considering the difference in English proficiency. Fighting linkrot is important, but I think I speak for many when I say you need to be more careful with your mass edits. I have compared AWB use to a B-52 bombing run: it can be very powerful, but if you call in the bombing run in the wrong place, the cleanup is massive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Trainsandotherthings:. I am just stressed right now and your feedback made my day.
    If the issue is with my choice of archive site, just say so. If the result of the ANI thread is that I shall no longer do link work with any archive site that isn't archive.org I will happily follow that. I do way way more than just archive stuff. Wayback is the gold standard of archive sites, and it is always the one I prefer the first. My work will not be seriously impacted if I am prevented from using any site that isn't archive.org, it just means longer do anything with preventing linkrot with sites that do not work with the Wayback machine, which, thanks to the amazing team at Archive.org, is rapidly becoming fewer and fewer. In the mean time, however, those links will unfortunately have to rot. The Wayback team is amazing and I am sure they will get to fixing all the issues, but in the mean time we should not prevent the usage of other archive sites until the Wayback team can fix the sites not working properly. But this is up to the community to decide. I was and have been taking a break from archiving "no-Wayback" sites anyway.
    If the issue is that I go too fast, I will make sure to slow down. Yes, I have been faster in recent days, but usually I go at 10 edits or less which I think is OK.
    If the issue is that I don't review my edits all the time, I will begin reviewing my edits all the time (which i already do for the most part).
    If the issue is that I need to be more careful, I will be more careful. Yes, I have made mistakes with AWB before. Just look at the Citevar situation. I responded by cleaning it all up. We are all humans, imperfect. I propose that if my AWB access is revoked, it is revoked for a limited amount of time (maybe a week? month?) because I think I do important work with it. My edits have been a net good, based on community feedback. And keep in note that even Izno said editor's talk page is largely without issue so far meaning that there is some level of support and consensus for my work. I respect each and every one of the editors in this thread, and I hate to see misconception burn bridges. Rlink2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was myself dragged over the coals at ANI for the better part of a month in November 2021. It was an experience I would not wish upon anyone but the most disruptive editors or vandals. It is why I usually refrain from commenting here at all, but as I said earlier I've seen your name pop up a lot on my watchlist so I felt the need to comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm currently leaning towards revoke access per the issues brought up by trainsandotherthings. Adding {{Bare URL PDF}} to enough pages that it got semi-protected seems a bit irresponsible. This is the type of thing that should've been brought up at {{Bare URL inline}}'s talk page or WikiProject Inline Templates before it got added to 1,532 different pages.
      This user certainly has potential though, so I am a bit torn. If access is revoked, I do think there should be a clear path for them to regain access. For the record, I have also not looked into the Rotlink connection at all. My comment is just a reflection on the AWB usage rather than socking accusations. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @MJL: I see nothing at all irresposnible about Rlink2's creation of {{Bare URL PDF}}. It is analogous to {{Bare URL inline}}, but helpfully provides a distinctive designator for PDF bare URLs, which pose a particular problem because there is no reliable way for tools to extract metadata from PDFs. It would have been better to complete the template before deploying it, but that oversight is a very minor issue, and easily remedied.
      If you or any other editor actually discussed this with Rlink2, you would them open, attentive, and well-seized of the issues. This issue would have been resolved promptly.
      It is very sad to see something like this used as "evidence for the prosecution", when no effort has been made to have the usual discussions about whether it is actually a problem. (Hint: it's not a problem. It's a productive addition). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: I have completed and documented {{Bare URL PDF}}. It may not be the perfect solution for PDF format WP:Bare URLs, but I thank @Rlink2 for taking this useful step forward.
      If editors want further discussion of how we can make progress on identifying and fixing the backlog of 47,887 untagged PDF-format bare URL refs (as he 20220101 database dump), this is not the appropriate venue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As an editor who fired a rocket at Rlink2 at an early stage (for an error that turned out have been made by WorldCat), I too began by being suspicious of their motives. I also had a sharp intake of breath to see so many of the pages I watch come up with bare URL flags. It was annoying that I missed them being added in the first place but we should not shoot the messenger. Some editors have complained at talk:Rlink2 that just to add title= is inadequate and want to see a full set of metadata: it seems that they would rather have a bare URL than a basic one. Personally I have found it a useful prompt to go get the metadata since invariably the site needs to be deconstructed by human eye. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Blocking their AWB access is being an enemy of the good. Maybe they should be admonished for employing 'almost a bot' but let's not get on our high horse about it. Does Counsel for the Prosecution propose that CitationBot be shut down too? If not, why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revoke AWB access as above, and launch SPI into possible sock puppetry/block evasion. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If Rotlink was blocked in 2013, it seems unlikely there would be any technical evidence left for a CU inquiry. A gap of 7 years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit would also seem to make any other attempt at proving socking/block evasion pretty well impossible too. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratulate Rlink2 for excellent work improving articles at a steady rate. Any bot-like process will leave imperfections behind due often to pre-existing and unpredictable errors in articles. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oculi, I agree. Rlink2 is doing great work, and should be congratulated, not hounded.
      This thread is an depressingly good illustration of the principle that no good deed should go unpunished. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah there! This discussion is deeply unpleasant to read. It seems like a pile-on.
    The complaint is based on a supposition that @Rlink2 is a) a block-evading sock, and b) somehow in cahoots with archive sites. No actual evidence has been offered for either assertion other than a similarity of usernames. Rlink2 denies both, and nobody has added any further evidence.
    The choice of this venue for a socking allegation is very quite strange, because Izno is a checkuser, so should know that suspected sock cases should be brought to WP:SPI. Why has that not been done here?
    As to the alleged "collusion" with archive sites, no evidence has been offered of any such collusion. And what harm could be done by any such collaboration? Archive.is is an acceptable archive site, so why this rush to monster an editor who archives some pages there? If some editors want to re-open the debate about whether to use Archive.is, they should open an RFC rather than monstering an editor who archives refs.
    As the OP notes, Rlink2's AWB work is mostly uncontroversial, accurate filling of bare links, and issues which arise out of that being discussed openly and amicably on their talk page. Their edits have made a huge contribution to clearing the backlog of bare URL refs, and I am shocked to see that valuable work being brought to a halt on the basis of a set of wild accusations.
    Nobody seems to have identified any actual harm being done by Rlink2. So what is this drama actually about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to BRFA. My recent experiences there have been of very poor communication speed, poor assessment and being subjected to gratuitous personal attack and insults which no BAG member was wiling to challenge.
    Until BAG can reform itself by make it less of a hazing exercise and showing the maturity to genuinely review its bad decisions, editors are well-advised to stay clear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with BHG. I would like to see any sockpuppetry accusations handled at WP:SPI in accordance with the burden of evidence there, as it's usually done. As for the bot use, that's a separate issue. While personally I'm not too happy about meatbots, this noticeboard has time and time again failed to revoke AWB access for editors running actual meatbots. While I'd like to see a consistently harder stance on that, I do find it difficult to believe the tally above for revoking access is solely due to the editing behaviour. archive.today is a perfectly acceptable and popular archive site.
    All the OP has said is that and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question -- there is no evidence presented for the assertion, and I'm not going to go digging around for evidence myself. I'd like to see some evidence presented here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader took the words right out of my mouth, honestly. All this infighting could instead be used to advance progress on Rlink Bot Task 2. The description and the goals have been slightly changed (for example, the bot will find bare refs itself, it won't need submissions), but for the most part I think it is best for everyone if we focus on advancing the bot task. The goal was always to get the bot task approved. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: it seems to me that unless Izno can present some actual evidence to support their allegation that Rlink2 is the owner of an archive site, they should strike the allegation and apologise.
    Same with the allegation of sockpuppetry: Izno should take their case to SPI and accept the outcome of that established process, or strike it and apologise.
    Editors should not be subjected to unsupported allegations which are the taken by other editors as grounds for sanctions, which is what has happened here.
    And given that Ser Amantio di Nicolao remains unsanctioned for about 4 million edits with a very badly-run unauthorised bot (he's too lazy to even use meaningful edit summaries, and that's the least of the problems), it would be grossly unjust to sanction Rlink2 for a well-run AWB task on a scale several orders of magnitude smaller. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The archive wars/RFCs are long behind us and I think I speak for all of us that we don't need to restart those. The issue of if we should use archive.today is completely seperate from me, if that is a discussion you want to entertain that is fine, don't take it out on me like BHG said. Like I've said before, I will happily accept not being able to work with any archive site that isn't archive.org, if your issue is that I somehow own these archival websites, and the community says they do not value my work with those alternate archive sites. If I was the owner of any of these sites I would not be making that offer. So that alone invalidates the supposed allegation of ownership.
    Regarding name similarity and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I should note that some of these users with similar usernames also share the same interests (for example, two of the usernames just so happen to be 'crats, and two of other similar usernames belong to two different amazing admins who both are intrested in sports topics). It's not some crazy, out of the world, one time thing, for someone to have a similar name to another, and for them to have similar interests. I think that if you want to say I someone else, you should have more evidence than just a similar username and having similar interests. Rlink2 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hurricaneinfomation

    Hurricaneinfomation. is repeatedly creating articles that are not notable, from articles Tropical Storm Helene 2012, Hurricane Isaac 2018, and Tropical Storm Ana 2021. IMO, this has got to stop, especially creating the Hurricane Isaac 2021 hoax article, even though this user has edited 2-3 days ago. This user has also been repeatedly warned, one was a final warning. Any thoughts/comments on this? Severestorm28 02:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I left a final warning as I'm about to go to bed and don't like to block and run. No objection to someone taking it further, but concur with @Severestorm28: that we're long past patience, especially with the recreation of Isaac. Star Mississippi 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. I was about to mention that he'd only created three articles ever, but the talk page does look daunting, with all the warnings and pleas to engage in actual conversation over these edits. I also see some serious WP:OWN behavior with requests for page protection [91] [92] which run "I need Semi Protection because I don't want anyone want for anyone to vandalize/destroy my wikipedia page. Since I go to college and when I'm not here people can vandalize my page all they want to and I don't want for anyone to do that." I'd support a NOTHERE block. Ravenswing 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support with Ravenswing about the WP:NOTHERE block, because now, he's just asking me whoever deleted the Helene article. This user is taking it too far, especially with too many talk page warnings. Severestorm28 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't accept admin bullying

    Hi, as according to my two year over experience on Wiki, i can't accept that was copyright violation , it was only one sentence with a few general words. Firstly, I started Chen Jinggu article with one sentence then i added "Legend" section that was copied from Guanyin article. I've explained in the page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW). I don't know that was original editor's copyvio. Violently admin removed the whole article. Really need to delete the whole article? They should only remove copyvio contents that came from Guanyin's article. Clearly that is not my violation. However, admin Justlettersandnumbers says the original stub version is also a copyright violation. I've shocked and that was only one sentence describe "Chen is a historical shaman priestess. She is one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect. " That tiny sentence was also edited by several editors. See below. Really?

    Our article The source[93]
    ... a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect ... one of the most important goddesses in Southeast China (the chief deity of the Lushan sect).... A historical shaman priestess who became ...

    . What a bullying! Sorry, I was angry and fiercely responded. Pls kindly teach me out and want to restore original stub. Tia VocalIndia (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a copyright investigation needs to be started? I see e.g. Huang Tianhua, which they created in January, vs. this

    Our article The source[102]
    ... was sent away when he was three years old to be trained by the'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He wore golden armour and wielded the Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could take him anywhere in a matter of seconds. After Cheng Tong informed him of his father's death, he eventually abandoned his master's service. Given a flower basket by his master, he went to his father's camp and used the mystical tablets in the flower basket to bring him back to life. After formally introducing himself to his family, he inquired about his mother's whereabouts and, upon learning of her death at the hands of King Zhou, pledged to assist in the overthrow of King Zhou. He battled against the Shang dynasty in several engagements, dying at least once before being resurrected by his master. He was one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most competent generals, dying at the hands of Gao Jineng. His father avenged his death by killing Gao Jineng with a single blow. After his death, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies him as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ... was sent away at the age of three to be tutored under the 'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He was described as wearing golden armour and wielding the mystical Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could transport him to any location in mere seconds. He eventually left his master's service after hearing of his father's death by Cheng Tong. Given a flower basket by his master, he rushed to his father's camp, and brought him back to life with magical pills in the flower basket. Formally introducing himself to his family, he asked about his mother's whereabouts and after hearing of her death at the hands of King Zhou of Shang, swore to aid in bringing down King Zhou. He fought in many battles against the Shang Dynasty, dying at least once before being revived by his master. He died a permanent death at the hands of Gao Jineng, becoming one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most talented generals. His death was avenged by his father, who killed Gao Jineng with one blow. At the end of the novel, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies Huang Tianhua as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ...

    Opening a WP:CCI may be necessary. Fram (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.
    I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[103]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.
    Hold Nickar Source[104]
    Hold Nickar is a Teutonic malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors. Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar, a malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors, or even about Alte Hoerner [...]

    ("Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs" is also copied from a source, but a different one).

    Hold Nickar Source[105]
    Hold Nickar is a patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon, according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune. In Russia he was Hold Nickar patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon or according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune;

    In addition, the first of those sources is shaky to say the least, and so are some of the other sources they proposed in the AfD – but that is a content issue, so not the important point here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I just meant that it was originally soft deleted and he brought it to a !keep. I didn't actually look at the article. Curbon7 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not look like this editor is capable of editing productively here. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editor

    The IP address 70.66.130.107 has been making some problematic edits. Particularly pertaining to global warming misinformation, and other political based misinformations. This user also seems to engage inn editing in complete non facts such as how spires affect the height of buildings. Profile seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.66.130.107 "Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 70.66.130.107"}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyMcEvoy (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TimothyMcEvoy: You didn't notify the IP user as required, so I have now done that for you.
    Either way, I am guessing Timothy found this user via this edit and started digging. This is the diff for the global warning skepticism. This series of edits are some of what I imagine are the other political based misinformations. A block may be appropriate here if they edit again (which they might idk). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nimmmad

    I blocked Nimmmad (talk · contribs) last year for disruptive editing - in effect editing footballer statistics incorrectly. He has popped back up and is doing the exact same thing. I think an indef is required. GiantSnowman 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Nimmmad. GiantSnowman 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And this editor still has never edited a talk page, including their own. Did I see somewhere that we'd partially fixed the 'no way to warn mobile users' problem? valereee (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've placed a 1-week from article space with a block message I hope they'll be able to see. Maybe that'll help them find their user talk. valereee (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - if they re-appear doing the same afterwards we'll let you know. GiantSnowman 19:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Pancyadams

    Serious WP:COI, WP:CIR, and WP:FRINGE issues. The editor has today created Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, Astrology Beliefs, Facts About Astrology, and Ankit Sharma (Astrologer). The latter one lived from 1931 until 2020, but looks alive and kicking in the many identical interviews he gave in 2021... Editor already created Pt. Ankit Sharma in 2018, and got advert and coi warnings at the time. I think we can do without them. Fram (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pages have already been deleted? Would you suggest an indef or topic ban? SoyokoAnis - talk 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The last article is still live (it was created today).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigel Ish Article was just deleted.
    @Fram A topic ban from astrology topics would be ideal. But I seriously think this user needs help on those issues you stated. Especially 5 articles deleted already. So maybe a 2w or month block. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go with an indef, but no problem if people want to try a more limited block (topic, namespace or duration) first. Fram (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted Draft:Ankit Sharma (Astrologer), which was in article space but was moved to draft space by MickyShy. My summary said "promotional language, self-promotion, A7, improperly verified BLP, NOTWEBHOST violation, duplicate also posted as Ankit Sharma - Indian Astrologer"--and they created the latter after Fram started this discussion. In addition, there's Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, which is an unattributed copy of Astrology with some changes, and Astrology Beliefs and the other are pretty much the same. All this (promotional writing, unsourced BLPs, unattributed copying to create fringe articles, thumbing one's nose at the community by creating another version of a promotional article while the first is being discussed, coupled with incompetence and copyright violations in their earlier edits, mixed with a possible COI for those universities) adds up to a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies I guess it does. So a topic ban is out of the question? SoyokoAnis - talk 18:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoyokoAnis, if a user has been blocked, it means they cannot edit at all. A topic ban is not needed until/unless the person requests unblock, which they would do on their user talk page. I'm going to suggest you try to avoid ANI for now, as you really aren't experienced enough to be helping out here. valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming behavior at 3RR

    I'm getting repeatedly cast aspersions, having my comments removed from the comments section. And getting gamed and gaslighted by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at this 3RR report. I haven't done anything wrong and I'm tired of this gamester trying to deny his own culpability when he has clearly gone over the top in edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • What. You were annotating Kwamikagami's own notes, in their text; that's not OK. As for aspersions--you are calling them a "gamester". Kwamikagami, you like Roblox or Shellshockers? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean like this? Oh, but wait, that's them. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's comment Inception EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what you mean or how it somehow incriminates the other editor--I do get the sarcasm! Anyway, I see you are not disputing my comment about the allegedly unwarranted removing of comments. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That comment was put in the middle of the report section, above the Comments: line. Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Skyerise I'm not sure what you're referring to but Drmies seems to be referring to [106] which is in the middle of Kwamikagami's signed comment, a signed comment which inside the comment section (i.e. below the comments line), and completely inappropriate. Please don't do that again. If you need to to address or dispute something Kwamikagami said, then please add it below their signed comment, like everyone else does, not in the middle. You can use quotations, descriptions whatever to make it clear what you're referring to as needed. The fact that Kwamikagami initially replied to the comment you added in the middle of their signed comment also in the middle (of their own, not your signed comment) doesn't excuse your behaviour since it's always confusing when people create problems like you did. Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I apparently pasted the wrong diff. Here is where he added a comment inside the report section, the same thing he complained about me doing. [107]. Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • After you said it was okay to post responses inside each other's comments, I posted one (clearly marked) inside yours. So you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for acting the way you did and then said we should? No aspersions here, but I do find your behaviour amazing. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive genre warrior from Greater Buenos Aires

    Someone from the outskirts of Buenos Aires has been busy genre warring in pop music articles, and leaving abusive edit summaries such as "DON'T ADD GENRES WITHOUT SOURCE, BITCH", "fuck the unsourced", "Put yo ass in a chair" and "Block me if you dare, Dog". I don't sense a positive net worth to the project. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully support blocking. I'm not well-verses in range blocks though, so I'd rather have someone else take care of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First thing that comes to mind when it comes to Argentinian (sorry, that's the Spanish pronunciation) music editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for three months. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How Hillsong Church garnered incivility and SPA edits

    I noticed that Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) called an editor liar. Unfortunately, I deleted a bit too much of the URL when I changed it to a diff and added it to Damien Linnane's talk page. It was only later that I saw a second instance. I was called out for the poor edit and the interaction did not improve. While that transpired, the other editor, L32007 (talk · contribs), wrote that they felt attacked by Damien Linnane on that original talk page, and made it clear that they were discussing a separate topic. Back on Damien Linnane's talk page, the editor wrote, "Of course I called an editor a liar" and continued to explain why that was perfectly acceptable to have done so.

    This is, unfortunately, a mess. L32007 is most clearly a WP:SPA and has edited primarily on the topic of Hillsong Church and associated articles. Do I expect the editor to attempt to minimize the church's (more like a denominiation's) problems? Of course! Do I think the editor is intentionally lying? No, I WP:AGF and assume an error. Do I think that there may be political spin? Probably.

    Damien Linnane, on the other hand, is attacking, unrepentant, aggressive and treating editing like a battleground, at least with this subject, and two separate editors.

    Am I perfect? Look at my block log, but I have attempted to stay cool on this topic. If no administrative action is taken on either of these editors, at least a nice discussion about WP:CIVILITY with Damien Linnane would be worthwhile and one about WP:COI with L32007, since my earlier comments on their talk page did not seem to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [108]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.
    I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [109]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [110]. As L32007 has just admitted today [111], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.
    L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [112]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [113]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [114]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [115]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.
    In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.
    Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.
    Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [116]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.
    Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of or spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.
    Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [117], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.
    In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page. I was just pointing out that he appeared well versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he was making himself. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE by Walamba.kana

    Walamba.kana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    [118] [119] [120] - Removed 1,500 text, replacing the Arab background of the figure with that of an Afghan/Pashtun

    [121] [122] Removed 6,472 text, added unsourced claim that the dynasty was Afghan/Pashtun

    [123] Removed the probable Tajik background of the dynasty

    Right after his block expired, he removed the Persian/Dari spelling of this article and replaced with Pashtun [124]

    Moreover, he also earlier wrote this rather nasty comment to me in his edit summary because I reverted him; HistoryofIran koss madar Irani khar = HistoryofIran your mothers pussy you Iranian donkey

    I think it's clear to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check my work on a revdel

    Kyrsten Sinema was just the target of page move vandalism. I think I got all of the logs but one is still visible to me as if not revdel'd on my watchlist. Please make sure I got it all. It may need to be suppressed by someone at a higher pay grade than me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think logs have been properly revision deleted. I was able to find the target but I think iy is only because I can see deleted edits, and this is fine, we do not need an oversight here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page harassment

    I'm being continuously harassed on my talk page by a Denver, Colorado-based IP hopper. They're on the range 2607:FB91:1100:0:0:0:0:0/43 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and the IP 174.16.104.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd appreciate it if an admin could watch my talk page for any inappropriate behavior at the least or semi-lock my talk page at the best. wizzito | say hello! 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has been blocked and talk has been semi-protected. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have another IP harassing me through edit summaries, 119.111.181.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has made unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles. [125][126][127][128][129] Please do something. Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They continued after your warning that they must use sources, so I have blocked for 31 hours. It's possible they're trying to be helpful, but haven't seen the warning. If that's the case, the block should help them find their page. Thanks for reporting, Firestar464. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    51.6.138.13 by Alexander Davronov

    51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [ANI NOTICE]
    51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Is it WP:BKFIP having fun again by going after my edits? Can someone take a look?
    IGES
    21:20, January 19, 2022 - «fixed style errors, removed badly-written recent addition»
    19:53, January 17, 2022 - «tidy-up; source»
    ↑ Removed my small, but well sourced contribution under a pretext of minor issues
    ANGLE (software)
    17:31, January 19, 2022 - «restored older text which was in good English»
    17:27, January 19, 2022 - «Undid revision 1066555004 by Alexander Davronov talk) riddled with errors»
    23:05, January 18, 2022 - «‎top: OpenGL ES»
    ↑ The same

    AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs adding unsourced, ethnically-targeted edits to a page

    Hello, for the past few days on the Adamawa State page, the users 2.25.21.231 (talk · contribs), 208.127.196.42 (talk · contribs), and 208.127.199.28 (talk · contribs) have continuously changed statistics without citing a source, contesting that the current source supports the edits, or even explaining the edits. There appears to be a concerted effort by these accounts to remove or diminish notes of the Fulani ethnic group and their language, Fulfulde along with unsourced religious "statistics" that literally do not add up. Their efforts seem to be focused on three parts of the page:

    • The accounts are deleting mentions of the Fulani from the demographics paragraph in the page's summary: a credible source—that these accounts are not contesting or removing—states that between 10%-20% of the state population are Fulani, thus easily making the group one of the largest in the state and notable enough to be in the demographics paragraph. Before recently the users did not delete the entire group from the sentence, instead editing that the group is confined to certain LGAs; however, due to some Fulanis nomadic lifestyle and the groups long history in the area, they also live throughout the entire state as no single region encompasses the ethnicity's area.
    • The accounts are changing religious statistics without explanation by dramatically reducing Muslim and traditionalist percentages: religious data in Nigeria is extremely hard to come by (I used a Afrobarometer survey from a few years ago along with recent maps that looked at additional data) but there is nowhere that comes close to suggesting that all Muslims are of the Izala sect or that Christians make up nearly 70% of the population. There could be arguments made that any one of the main religious groups have a higher or lower percentage than the 55-30-15 split I wrote but 25-67-7-1 is literally made up (especially considering their earlier edits had the numbers at a math-defying 30-67-7 split). I look forward to working with others to find better demographic data but the IPs "data" is absurd.
    • Lastly, the accounts are deleting mentions of Fulfulde from the language section: I cannot access the current language source, however, the users have refused to cite a new source or say that the current source supports the edits. Just going based off my ok knowledge of the state, it would make logical sense for Fulfulde to be spoken in most LGAs, Fulanis live throughout the entire state and Fulfulde is a regional language that many non-Fulanis learn as a second or third language. There was even a study that I found that states that all Adamawa state LGAs have Fulfulde (and Hausa) speakers leading me to question the deletions.
    • I'd appreciate admins looking into the issues—especially as all three IP address seem to have made disruptive edits on other pages before—and look forward to the response, thank you Watercheetah99 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected the page for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1066833242"