Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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

Personal attacks by Number 57

Instead of easily resolving the edit dispute by producing sources to back up his claims, Number 57 is resorting to WP:BULLYING and WP:PERSONALATTACKS by calling me a liar and incompetent. I stand by my point. It shouldn't be that hard to understand. An Indian political group is being inserted into an infobox about a Bangladeshi (formerly Pakistani) election. All I did was to remove the Indian political group (Scheduled Caste Federation). I am doing so because I am not finding evidence that SCF existed as a formal political group in Pakistan and Bangladesh.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a clear case of either incompetence or disingenuity/dishonesty on Solomon's part. In 2017 I inserted a results table to the 1954 East Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This was based on this source used throughout the article, which makes numerous references to the SCF contesting the election, with page 167 showing them as winning 27 seats. The article on the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly, expanded by someone else, also showed the SCF as winning 27 seats at this time. In 2019 RaviC added the SCF to the infobox as the second-placed party.

Today's order of events has been as follows:

1. Solomon removes the SCF (and National Congress) from the infobox with no explanation)
2. After this is reverted, Solomon removes the SCF from the infobox again, initially claiming it "was allied with the winning coalition"
3. After this is reverted, Solomon again remove the SCF, now claiming it was unclear if the SCF was a formal political group in Pakistan claiming there is no evidence that it was (despite the source mentioned above)
4. Ignoring a request to follow BRD, Solomon removes the SCF from the infobox for a fourth time, also misleadingly claiming that "The infobox looks very good", despite having messed it up (the second party is not correctly filled in and the infobox is distorted).
5. After being asked on their talk page to undo their edit, Solomon claims "there is no source or evidence to back up your claim that SCF existed as a formal group", despite the existence of the aforementioned source. They also claim "the infobox was fine before you messed it up months ago" and that they were restoring the stable version, with both claims clearly being untrue. At this point I noted that either they were lying about the page history, or were not competent enough to understand it.

Had Solomon actually read the section of the article that Scheduled Caste Federation links to, they would have seen that it states "There was also a party called Scheduled Caste Federation in Pakistan".

In summary, this appears to have been a series of desperate attempt to justify an initial bad edit, evolving into more and more ludicrous defences. Cheers, Number 57 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentence of there being an SCF equivalent in Pakistan has no source. Also, why not stick to the actual name of Pakistan National Congress instead of "National Congress"? As someone from the area, I know the name "Pakistan Congress" is actually used to refer to this group, instead of "National Congress" (which no one uses).

The problem is that SCF is taking us to a link called the Republican Party of India. This is very problematic. It tells the reader that an Indian political party founded by B. R. Ambedkar contested an election in East Bengal in 1954 (which was then part of the Dominion of Pakistan and later became Bangladesh). Due to the partition of India, this problem should be understandable to any reasonable editor. Only a genuinely disingenuous editor can resort to personal attacks over these very legit concerns. It gives the impression that East Bengal was not a part of Pakistan but a part of India. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In response to the query "why not stick to the actual name of Pakistan National Congress", because the article title is actually National Congress (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

If the problem was really the target of the SCF link as you now claim, you could have just changed the target rather than deleting the party from the infobox. However, I don't believe you were actually concerned about the link at the time, as you made no attempt to change other links in the article (such as in the results table), and were claiming the SCF didn't exist in Pakistan. I suspect you have just moved onto this as the latest attempt at defending your edits after your previous claims were rebutted. If you really believe the link was the problem, then the solution is very simple: Restore the infobox to how it was, but just change the link to Scheduled Caste Federation (Pakistan). Number 57 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, you are really full of hatred aren't you? Are you from the RSS or do you sympathize with them?

Interestingly, it was RaviC who moved the page from Pakistan National Congress to the present title. The move was absolutely unnecessary. PNC existed in the 1950s. RaviC is also responsible for the poorly drafted infobox.

My only reason for the revert was the link to the Indian party. I do not prefer the red link. If the page does not exist, it means SCF did not exist as a formal group in Pakistan. You asked me to gain consensus. When I tell you my problem, you are again going into borderline WP:PERSONALATTACKS and questioning my integrity. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks ("full of hatred") and casting aspersions ("sympathize with RSS"). Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question in response to his incessant personal attacks, didn't you notice? No aspersions. Valid questions because he is suspiciously and mysteriously promoting a flawed infobox with a foreign political party. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico: well whether it's a personal attack or a WP:POINT violation cut it out if you want to continue to edit. Note that it makes no sense to first claim something is a "rhetorical question" then say it's a "valid questions". (Asking if someone is "Are you from the RSS or do you sympathize with them?" is definitely not a valid question, and if you do it again you probably should at a minimum be topic banned, but maybe just site banned since we don't need that sort of nastiness here.) As for the rest, if you know something is always called XY instead of YZ because you're from X, then you should be able to provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating this. You're then free to make a WP:RM based on WP:Common name. Failing that, we don't care what you know. Also whether our article should link to a page where the only relevant coverage is

There was also a party called Scheduled Caste Federation in Pakistan after Partition. Ramnarayan Rawat stated that the SCF "created the space for an alternative to Congress-type 'nationalist' politics in post- 1947 Uttar Pradesh".

is an editorial decision and I can see valid arguments either way. I see no valid editorial arguments to removing a party which won 27 seats as per the sources used, from our article. The solution if it's felt linking to the article isn't a good idea is either to make it a red link or unlink it, rather than removing it completely. If it's believed the sources are wrong and no such political party existed, sources need to be found demonstrating this before removing the sourced info from our article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Those were absolutely aspersions and personal attacks. Peculiarly enough, disagreeing with you doesn't equate to being "full of hatred," and it is only "suspicious" or "mysterious" to editors who feel that no one can disagree with them without there being some sinister motive behind it all. I agree with Nil Einne that such mindsets are incompatible with this encyclopedia. Ravenswing 04:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've all made your point very clear. I struck out that part. But if WP:Bullying is no longer applicable, why does the policy exist? On top of your scolding, I have to deal with Worldbruce. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That would presuppose we agreed with your position that because you're not allowed to launch personal attacks and insults, it's acceptable to bully people, a curious twist of logic I'm having difficulty fathoming. (WP:BULLY, of course, is an essay, not a policy.) Ravenswing 15:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In regards to original question, I don't think Number 57 is guilty of PERSONALATTACK in the link given above. And as for the whole issue with the impact of Partition on political parties it should be noted that some political organizations retained organization in both India and Pakistan for some time. The Communist Party of India retained organization in Pakistan until the Communist Party of Pakistan was created (and from what I gather the communist organization in East Pakistan remained under supervision of CPI for some time longer). It is possible that the SCF in Pakistan was still a component of the Indian SCF. It is also likely that the SCF branches in Pakistan eventually created a separate party. I'll try to look into this. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang

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

---

Is a WP:BOOMERANG applicable here? In January, Solomon The Magnifico's incivility and disruptive editing was discussed here (reported by myself). At that time Schazjmd suggested a topic ban. In the end no sanctions were applied, but Cullen328 noted, "Another similar report in the future may well result in much more serious sanctions". In May, Solomon The Magnifico was blocked for two-weeks for edit warring. Nevertheless they've continued to edit war, and spew incivility. There's no sign that they want to change or can. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by they? I am a singular person here. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico: You don't list your pronouns anywhere, so the appropriate pronoun to refer to you would be with the singular they. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What ever happened to WP:GOODFAITH? I try my best to avoid conflict. I even received a barnstar from one of my staunchest critics. @Worldbruce, you are intent on isolating and excluding me. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My edits are always well-sourced and constructive. I hardly engage in editing disputes, except when I feel the issue at stake merits more action. Sometimes there are mistakes, which is only human. Why does my good behavior get rewarded with talk of banning me? I may not be very conventional but I focus on my area of expertise. But what you are saying is a stretch, really. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with Scheduled Caste Federation (Pakistan). Writing it like that did not hit me until it was pointed out here. My main problem was that Scheduled Caste Federation was linked to the Republican Party of India, which is out of place in an election infobox about East Bengal. So once I've come to accept the solution, why do I have to listen to talk of banning me? The editor I reported could have suggested this in the talk page. @Worldbruce I come from a distinguished political family of the subcontinent so I suggest you cease with your WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I don't reveal my identity for obvious reasons of security and privilege. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you display that barnstar on your Mercedes? EEng 15:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't own a Mercedes. If you understood how Worldbruce is getting to me, you would understand where I am coming from. My family has an excellent scholarly record. Worldbruce keeps calling me uncivil even though my edits are reasonable most of the time, save for the occasional editing dispute. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't give a fuck who your family is even if you did reveal your identity. Why on earth would you think that is remotely relevant to anything at all? Except when it comes to cases where you may have a CoI which clearly isn't why you raised the issue, the only thing that matters is the quality of your edits. And while I haven't look in depth, the examples I've seen are incredibly poor. As I said above, there was absolutely no reason to remove the sourced info on a party winning 27 seats. There were a number of options you could have taken to deal with your concerns including turning it into a red link, no link; or even raising the issue on the talk page and discussing it in good faith. You chose the option which actively made things worse. After choosing that option and being harshly criticised, instead of talking about it either with the editor or on the article, ignoring that criticism while recognising fair or not, you had done something incredibly silly but you still had concerns; you came to ANI and proceeded to make personal attacks. I'm actually not happy about Number 57 calling you a liar but since you proceeded to cast the terrible aspersions above, it seemed reasonable to ignore it since your behaviour has been so much worse. Now instead of recognising you'd done something wrong and trying to better in the future which is what we care about, you've come here to tell us about your family? Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban related to all Indian subcontinent politics, broadly construed. Not only is their editing history questionable and attitude poor, above they say they are from a "distinguished political family of the subcontinent" so they clearly have a COI in this area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)
• Support topic ban: related to all Indian subcontinent politics, broadly construed. I concur with Nil Einne and GiantSnowman in every particular, and Solomon lashing out in all directions is a poor look. If Solomon really does think that their barnstar immunizes them against bad behavior, that WP:AGF means it's not allowed to call them on it, and that they get to obliquely threaten WorldBruce with their "distinguished political family," it's not merely that their behavior merits a TBAN, it calls into question their ability to collaborate with other editors here.

  EDIT: No objections to an indef, as this is evolving. 950 main space edits don't comprise a body of work we can't bring ourselves to do without. Ravenswing 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban because every distinguished family has its badly behaved black sheep. EEng 15:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Apology: I have struck out the objectionable comments on my family and so on. I apologize. I have edited many articles without any fuss or any problem. I tend to cooperate with editors as much as possible. This dispute erupted over an extremely minor issue. As I said, I felt the Scheduled Caste Federation had no place in an infobox about a Bangladeshi election (because I have never heard that it existed as a formal political group in Bangladesh and Pakistan). In 1954, the two main contenders were United Front led by A. K. Fazlul Huq and the Muslim League led by Nurul Amin. All I did was alter the infobox to show these two main contenders. All other groups were allied with one of the two main contenders. The Scheduled Caste Federation may have put up candidates informally. Why is it so difficult to find a source about its formal existence? All the other groups are easily verifiable. Everyone in the area knows the two main contenders were United Front and Muslim League. The United Front won by a huge landslide and the Muslim League was thrashed. I simply wanted to show the images of the two main contenders. I accept my first revert and edit summary was poorly drafted. I made a grammatical mistake even. I am sorry Number 57 and I apologize to everyone else. I do not like disruptive behavior myself. I keep myself busy with history articles mostly. This election article was a relatively minor edit in my editing history. I hope you all will find it in yourselves to forgive me. I'm sorry.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Also, please note that I lost a family member recently. The comments on my family are uncalled for. My family is very proud of me, and so are the people around me. I really do not know what to say anymore to you people. My area of expertise is Bangladesh and I do not want a topic ban over such a minor issue.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've lost a family member recently, and somehow I've managed to follow Wikipedia rules of conduct and civility all the same; once again, you're implying that some external factor gives you a free pass against bad behavior. No one has said anything disparaging about your family -- what is "uncalled for" is you raising the subject at all. You may safely count me in agreement with Number 57 that your apology comes from your realization that you're in genuine trouble here, and not out of any sense of you having violated policy ... and that's bolstered by your further comments. Ravenswing 02:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have left an apology on Number 57's talk page. I will stick to the status quo preferred by Number 57.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Unfortunately I encounter editors like Solomon on a regular basis and they make editing Wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Given the relatively recent edit warring block, it would appear that they struggle to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations (they are only backtracking and apologising now as they've realised they are in trouble). The various discussions on Talk:Bengal Presidency are an illustration of how Solomon seems to work, including constantly casting aspersions on editors' motivations, including this comment where they seem to be accusing another editor of being a Nazi?? The comment above that "If the page does not exist, it means SCF did not exist as a formal group in Pakistan" is also concerning and suggests that even after a year of editing, they do not understand basic principles of how Wikipedia works. Number 57 19:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  But that editor later admitted to the fact I was talking about. Why did he apologize then? He admitted that I was right after verifying the sources. This is being blown way out of proportion. I am with the truth. I sure hope truth wins on Wikipedia, because all this seems very much against the truth. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am not "they". Gosh, what is happening here? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  The issue isn't whether you're right or wrong, but that you've been very WP:UNCIVIL in you interactions with other editors. Also the use of singular they in informal language is over a century old in some forms of English, if you wish to avoid this then you could consider putting your pronoun preferences in your signature. Otherwise I suggest assuming good faith that other editors mean nothing by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe some of your family's excellent scholars can it explain it to you. EEng 21:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  They is a perfectly acceptable pronoun, that has existed in this usage in England for many centuries, to use to refer to another when their personal pronoun is either unknown or their gender is not relevant to the conversation. I was always taught to refer to others in this manner when the gender is not relevant to the point being made and will rarely use he or she (and no it's not some modern thing.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah...an appeal to truth. This is going only one way. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  You have protested "they" a few times now, but at no point have you actually set forth by what pronoun you prefer to be called. It isn't that hard to clue us in: he? she? it? We will be happy to comply. Ravenswing 08:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe magno/magnee/magself? EEng 18:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban related to all Indian subcontinent politics, broadly construed (appealable after no less than one year). The substance of their comments in this discussion alone are highly concerning for several reasons that others have already commented on and so I will not repeat, but digging deeper into the edits and interactions with others shows that this doesn't appear to be a topic area in which the editor is productively editing in at this time, so a topic ban seems a reasonable route to take. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just a note per the indef block suggestions below, I'm not opposed to that as a solution, but it wouldn't be my first choice to go straight there. However, I think some sort of action is needed. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The follow-up apologies and explanations make it even clearer to me that this editor still does not have a real grasp on what they did wrong or what civility means. Even within his apology, he felt the the need to make excuses, saying that it was overblown, that he was right, and that Wikipedia would suffer if not for his presence. Seeing the regular excuse about how he's only disruptive when things are important to him makes me think that a site ban would be more appropriate. One of the basics here is that you don't always get your way, and sometimes you don't get your way on something that you think is important. But a topic ban covering the subcontinent is a must; if he is to stay at all, at this point, it should be away from the area that he's caused trouble in on multiple occasions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Propose indef block. Alas a topic ban is unlikely to avoid further disruption by Solomon The Magnifico, particularly if the ban is limited to politics. The straw that broke the camel's back happens to have taken place in connection with an article about politics, but little of his editing is politics-related. He describes his editing as mostly history. His most edited articles include: Bangladesh, Bengal, Bengal Presidency, Chittagong, Dhaka, Economy of Bangladesh, Kolkata, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There have been problems with his behaviour and competence, similar to those discussed above, at a bunch of those articles.

For example, at Bengal he recently reverted PadFoot2008, saying in his edit summary "I don't have time for a history lesson". Did he mean he didn't have time to give PadFoot2008 a history lesson, or didn't have time to learn history? Either way, it's unacceptable. In the revert he restored analysis that is not directly supported by the cited source. WP:BURDEN? He doesn't need to cite sources. After all, he's "someone from the area", comes "from a distinguished political family", which "has an excellent scholarly record", and "know[s] for a fact that [his] content is better". His claim that his edits "are always well-sourced and constructive" is balderdash. If a topic ban is applied, it should be at least a topic ban from all Bangladesh or Bengal related articles, broadly construed. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support idef. Dont see any redeeming quality here, especially with their responses in this thread. A topic ban from the Indian Subcontinent is unlikely to end the disruption, though it can also be considered if they are offered a bit more rope. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support idef too , but what's your opinion on the block proposal? EEng 20:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hah. Nice.

  Support indef. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Solomon has been indulging in edit warring and seems to have no respect for other's opinions, the community consensus or WP:NOR. I've also observed that he makes incorrect and biased generalizations and purposely misinterprets sources to serve his bias. In addition, he has serious editorial bias and regularly violates Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Even if a topic ban is to be applied, it should cover all articles related to the Indian subcontinent; however that too might be pretty inadequate owing to his destructive editing nature. Editors like him make editing Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for other editors, especially for those who assume good faith. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block. They seem really immature and considering their behavior hasn't improved much since 2017 it's the only way to resolve this. I think it's a matter of personal growth that Solomon needs to take for himself as he appears more goofy than anything else. UnironicEditor (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block of anyone who makes a "do you know who I am?" (or, even worse, a "do you know who my family are?") edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block, 1st choice. TBAN second choice I'm afraid this person's self exaltation makes collaboration with others difficult, and a TBAN might just shove the problem into the future.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I took the apology into consideration. The timing gives it an air of disingenuity. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef block. by the comments made in this discussion by Solomon, i doubt that they can collaborate effectively with others, barring sudden behavioral changes à la Phineas Gage. DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor does seem rather excitable, but given his apology in the face of ridicule he's shown me enough that I favour a second chance. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would be inclined to give an apology more weight if it wasn't given only when the discussion was heading towards a topic ban, and even then it's an apology that attempts to downplay their actions. They apologized because, in their own words, they do not want a topic ban over such a minor issue. - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef block - This user has not done very much to endear themselves towards users of Wikipedia who are interested in communicating in a collaborative environment. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ptb1997

This user has a long term pattern of making edits they have been asked not to do, as be seen throughout their talk page by a multitude of editor. User has exactly zero recent communication include in edit summaries. User has been blocked for this in the past and hasn't learned. Edit summary advisements go back 8 years, there's a warning from an admin 5 years ago to stop the unconstructive editing. The most recent issue that this editor continues to do despite warnings is contrast issues with colors.--Rockchalk717 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Partial indef (mainspace) till they communicate. Thanks, Lourdes 06:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Number of concerns on a COI editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reported user sanctioned leniently (i.e. p-blocks only) and is warned against any further WP:COI editing, WP:FORUM violations and WP:CIR oversights. El_C 05:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Hello, I was asked by other editors to post this here. I'm making this entry as I've been concerned by a number of actions by a confirmed WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST editor - @Gill110951:. I'm surprised some of these have not been picked up on before. For context, Richard Gill is a mathematician who has campaigned against the conviction of nurses who he thinks are wrongly imprisoned, including playing a major role in the release of Lucia de Berk. He has also now turned his interest to campaigning against the conviction of Lucy Letby: [1]. Looking into this editor I have seen what I observe to be a number of infringements on policies, which for ease I think is best for me to list and summarise here, starting with what I see as perhaps the most serious infringement:

• Substantial WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST infringements. In a talk page discussion the other day, Gill alluded to how his 'own page' had been 'repeatedly vandalised in recent months'. When I looked at said page (Richard D. Gill), I was shocked to find that he had created the article on himself some time ago: [2]. Somewhat surprised to see that this had not already been picked up upon, I then found that he had created other articles on cases he was directly involved in too, such as, notably, the Lucia de Berk article [3]. Obviously these were created some time ago, but the edit history shows that he has continued pretty much ever since to edit, revert and patrol pages on which he has a conflict of interest, as recently as a couple of weeks ago in the case of his own article: [4], [5]. Does this not all go against the COI policy that "you should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles"??
• WP:CANVASSING(?). Further research on Gill reveals that he has recently been promoting his Wikipedia edits to his own article on his social media to his supporters and followers - [6]. Considering that such actions are likely going to encourage his followers on the social media platform to come to his aid or support his edits, could this also not constitute a form of WP:CANVASSING? Unsure if this qualifies but thought I should mention it.
• WP:PROMOTION, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COICAMPAIGN. Gill said on the Lucy Letby talk page that his purpose, despite being on the talk page, was "not to suggest changes to the article" [7] and was "not suggesting changes to the article [8]. This was uncomfortable to me as it seemed, considering his aim was "not to suggest changes to the article", that he was instead going against WP:SOAPBOX and contravening the warning at the top of the page that "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". He instead was using the space to promote his own personal views on the wider Letby case and, tangentially, his criticism of the UK legal system in general, rather than (self-admittedly) discuss the article and changes to it [9]. Another editor, when starting the initial talk page discussion, had already suggested that Gill avoided this particular discussion as it partly concerned including him on the Letby article [10], but Gill did not heed this advice and instead did almost the opposite and just swamped the discussion and another related one he then starts: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I did try and remind Gill on a number of occasions of the other user's request for him to avoid this particular issue [19], [20], but he continued anyway. What I also thought was particularly concerning was his WP:REDACTING his own previous talk to provide links to he and his allies' personal campaign pages and to his own Wikipedia page (which as already stated, he created) [21]. I just ought to clarify here that I'm not complaining about him discussing on talk, I know that COI editors are encouraged to suggest edits there instead of editing COI articles directly and that them posting on talk is fine, but it's his specific conduct during talk discussions here which is what I'm concerned about on this point.
• WP:REDACT. As briefly alluded to above, Gill has also been altering his own talk contributions after other editors have already replied to him, an apparent infringement of WP:REDACT. He did so here: [22]. Whilst it initially appears that this edit may have been done in good faith, the surreptitious changing of his comment on "the enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" to "what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" was done in direct response to my talk point about how his acknowledgement of this 'enormous bias' in secondary sources actually reinforced my point [23] about how examples of reliable secondary sources disbelieving Letby's conviction are almost non-existent. Therefore, his going back on his original comment to redact it to 'what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media...' is evidently an attempt to conceal his previous, potentially unfortunate, comments. This really does seem to be a WP:REDACT issue. Furthermore, he redacted in that edit something what seems to me to also be quite disingenuous - his writing on himself in the third person(!) as one of the 'highly qualified professionals' on his side, which was misleading to editors who may not have realised that the person listing Richard Gill as a highly qualified professional was Richard Gill!

Another editor, @NEDOCHAN:, has since noted that Gill has now started directly editing the Lucy Letby article which he has a COI involvement in, including adding an unsourced addition on the specific subject of doubt on her conviction - the COI issue in which he is specifically involved in - [24]. He also reverted several copy edits and reverted NEDOCHAN's removal of the unsourced addition [25], simply claiming "sources are easy to find" and "easy to confirm from recent media reports" [26], so as well as ignoring COI guidelines, Gill is also appearing to now infringe on WP:Verifiability. Could I request that someone looks at this and considers if any action needs to be taken? Without anything I fear this editor will also progress onto more edits on the Letby article on which he has a direct COI clash. Thank you. Snugglewasp (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Snugglewasp is constantly doubting my good faith concerning my comments on the Talk page of the Lucy Letby article. I noticed many examples of bias in the article, and tried to correct a couple of them. Lucy Letby has been convicted after a long and controversial trial. The sentence is controversial. The verdict is controversial: the jury missed one person and majority verdicts were accepted instead of the normally required unanimous verdicts. Lucy is appealing; Lucy Letby is a living person. The legal procedure to have an appeal has started. The article is already too long and much too detailed. It reflects the main stream media reporting of the prosecution arguments during the trial. Editors on this article need to realise that being found guilty of serious crimes after just one criminal trial is not synonymous with being guilty of serious crimes. UK tabloid media do not draw that distinction. I think that Wikipedia should. Richard Gill (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Richard, the way we determine whether someone is guilty is in court. Lucy Letby is guilty of the most unimaginably horrific crimes and we know that's true because a jury has reached a verdict after an evidence-based trial. We can and should say so in Wikipedia's voice. I can see that you have doubts, but Wikipedia is not a place to contradict the verdict of the court as reported in mainstream media. These edits are disruptive and they need to stop.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am *not* contradicting the verdict of the court. The verdict is the verdict. Lucy is, presently, a convicted serial killer nurse. She is in prison. If nothing changes, she will leave prison in a coffin. I am not contradicting that. What makes you think that I do not think she is a convicted serial killer nurse? Richard Gill (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indef p-blocked Gill110951 (Richard Gill) from Richard D. Gill as well as from Lucy Letby and Talk:Lucy Letby (see User talk:Gill110951#Partial blocks). I'm not sure how this one slipped through the cracks. I also don't really understand the nature of this external-cum-onwiki advocacy for nurse serial killers, like Letby recently or Lucia de Berk years back, but it's obviously disruptive and in violation of the conflict of interest guideline. As I told him, these p-blocks serve as a final warning against this kind of behaviour. El_C 11:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I also closed WP:AN#A_number_of_concerns_about_a_COI_editor (permalink). One noticeboard thread is enough. El_C 11:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• (After edit conflict with El C). Given Gill110951's strong opinion (and potential legal involvement in an appeal?) I agree that he probably shouldn't be editing the Letby article, and he's evidently been disruptive on that article's talk page (I haven't looked). But I want to point out that last month we had an AN section because a relatively new editor was personally attacking him and making biased additions to the article about him. Having been unwise enough to write an autobiography here doesn't make him any less of a BLP, and I don't see any edits by him to that article since those events (I radically rewrote the segment). Yngvadottir (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Dear Yngvadottir, thanks for your support. May I mention, though, that I never ever “wrote an autobiography of myself” as a Wikipedia page. I merely helped rename an existing page about myself in order to disambiguate the four Richard Gill’s about whom other people had created Wikipedia articles. Back in the day when I did this, people were not so fussy. People were collaborative and trusted in one another’s good faith. Oh tempora, oh mores! Richard Gill (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  The first edit in the page history of Richard D. Gill is yours, on 31 Oct 2006, which you described as "Copy/paste from R D Gill's short biography at his university of Leiden web site", and over the next day you copy-edited it, and added categories and a picture of yourself. That looks very much like writing an autobiography of yourself, not "merely helped rename". NebY (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  That’s what it might look like today, but that is because there was an existing page about me which needed disambiguation. It now no longer exists. Richard Gill (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  You wrote above 'I never ever “wrote an autobiography of myself” as a Wikipedia page. I merely helped rename an existing page about myself'. The page history shows that you pasted in your biography, copy-edited it, categorised it and illustrated it. That is not "merely helping rename" and it is writing an autobiography of yourself as a Wikipedia page. NebY (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  There was a two-sentence substub at Richard Gill (physicist) (relevant revision) that was superseded by the autobiography. —Cryptic 13:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Look for web pages called “Richard Gill” which no longer exist. Yes, I am as vain as any other famous scientist, but I do not create Wikipedia articles about myself out of the blue. I am not stupid. Richard Gill (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi El_C, can you explain to me how I can WP:PING you? That page is a redirect to another page and I don’t see what I am supposed to do. I have no objection to an appealable ban against editing the Lucy Letby page, or its talk page. The hostility I met there was stunning. I object to not being able to edit the talk page of the article about me. I think that if someone puts facts on that page about me which are wrong, that I should be able to point that out. Thanks for your consideration. Richard Gill (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I linked WP:PING for you, Richard Gill (← ping), which outlines the pertinent documentation (though it is now moot, since we are presently speaking). In answer to your question: you are still able to edit the talk page of the article about you, I purposefully did not restrict you from it. El_C 11:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, then everything is fine!

You say you don’t understand advocacy for nurse serial killers. I only advocate for retrials of dubious convictions. I am against injustice, and against misuse of science. I work in medical statistics and in forensic science and in quantum physics. I have worked as often for the prosecution as for the defence in numerous high profile criminal cases. For instance, I pioneered novel statistical methodology which secured the convictions of the Hezbollah terrorists who assassinated prime minister Hariri of Lebanon. Are you asserting that Lucia de Berk and Daniela Poggiali are guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted? Richard Gill (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who Daniela Poggiali is. I only found out who Lucia de Berk is by way of this report. Obviously, the latter was exonerated. The problem, however, is that even though you've joined in 2006, you still conduct yourself as a newcomer (like not knowing how to WP:PING, even when it was linked for you). A newcomer who brings their external advocacy onwiki, without a firm understanding of policy and best practices. Again, I refer you to WP:ADVOCACY, which you should not use Wikipedia for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is meant to report on convictions and appeals (both successful and failed) after they happen, rather than attempt to influence these as they happen. El_C 12:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I know. Wikipedia has changed a lot since 2006. I have changed a lot since 2006. Wikipedia used to be fun. Nowadays it is all about waving the rule book. I’ve been banned from Wikipedia many times before. I did a little arithmetic calculation on the Monty Hall problem, but that was “own research”. Lucia was exonerated because of me (and quite a few other people). People in the UK never realised that the Lucy Letby case is so similar to the Lucia de Berk case, till a few days ago. Oh well. Richard Gill (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC

PS. Like any Wikipedia editor, I edit and keep an eye on pages which interest me. I have many interests. I object to my interest in the Wikipedia article on the Lucy Letby case being labelled a “conflict of interest”. I happen to have a lot of knowledge about serial killer nurse cases, and I am a scientist with a pretty strong track record for work on the uses and abuse of science in society. Therefore I have a personal moral obligation, and a professional obligation, to disseminate my knowledge. One way is through work on Wikipedia (which in the past has been very highly appreciated). I would like to see fellow editors assume “good faith” on my side, and to enter into discussion with me, before proposing bans of a person whose opinions they apparently disagree with. Opinions in the UK are presently divided about 50:50 as to whether Lucy Letby had a fair trial. Outside the UK, things are different. The tabloid media have created an atmosphere in which nobody in the UK dares to speak out if they suspect her trial was unfair. (There are very reliable sources supporting this opinion). Richard Gill (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your professional qualifications, "personal moral obligation" and "professional obligation[s]" do not, however, supersede Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which require -- and always have, despite your inference that 2006 was some golden era where editors could input whatever the hell they wanted with complete impunity -- references to reliable sourcing.

Beyond that, you've made some puzzling statements. First is saying on the one hand that opinion in the UK runs 50:50 on whether Letby had a fair trial, and then on the other hand that "nobody in the UK dares to speak out if they suspect her trial was unfair." Which is it? Secondly, there's your comment about having been "banned from Wikipedia many times before." You are aware that we can all see your block history, right? [27] It looks to have been pristine before El_Cid's TBLOCK. Between that and your curious belief that being found guilty at trial is not held to be synonymous with being guilty, you will perhaps forgive us for not as confident as you are that your expertise trumps all other considerations and facts. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing, it's both. Opinion is divided; and those who hold the wrong opinion dare not express it. If you want proof I can give it to you, but not in public. So you can believe me or not, as you like, but I assure you that this will become common knowledge in a few weeks.

I have been banned from editing the Monty Hall three door problem page. I can't remember if I was banned from editing Wikipedia altogether, for some period. Anyway, later the ban was rescinded.

Being found guilty means that a jury decided you were guilty. In 10% of cases, a conviction is later overturned. Are you saying that false convictions never ever occur?

I am not saying that my opinion trumps Wikipedia rules. I believe that I have been falsely accused of Wikipedia crimes, and I am trying to defend my Wikipedia reputation. I hope that one is considered innocent till proven guilty. Remember the "good faith" presumption, which all Wikipedia editors are supposed to hold to, if possible. Richard Gill (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You wrote Opinions in the UK are presently divided about 50:50 as to whether Lucy Letby had a fair trial. Can you back up that public assertion in public, or are you referring to it when you say If you want proof I can give it to you, but not in public? NebY (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my problem with that is that if no one dares proffer an opinion that Letby didn't have a fair trial, by what means could anyone possibly determine that a 50:50 split exists -- reading tea leaves? Offering to give me non-public proof just strikes me as melodramatic; does Mr. Gill foresee ANI regulars racing to alert the UK tabloid press, or that he is a figure of such importance that the tabloid press would care?

As far as the "false conviction" thing goes, come now. A fact is a fact. That facts can change should not be a mystery to any academic. Nor should it be a mystery to an academic what happens when they do: the textbooks and references are changed to reflect new realities. These sorts of revisions happen on Wikipedia thousands of times daily: facts are superseded by new ones. There's a new prime minister, the new population figures are out, the landmark burned down and no longer exists, historians revise the date of this ancient battle or that archaeological find. Ravenswing 05:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Gill&action=history As you will see, someone created a Wikipedia article "Richard Gill (physicist)". I changed it to "statistician" and added some basic biographical details which are all on public record. I did not add boastful accounts of my exploits. Other persons found it useful to do that, later. I strongly object to the accusation that I have designed and constantly edited the Wikipedia article about myself. That is slander.

Yes, I helped free convicted serial killer nurses Lucia de Berk and Daniela Poggiali; I contributed to attempts to have the case of Ben Geen reviewed by the CCRC. I was a coauthor of a publication of the Royal Statistical Society, in which common problems with the use of statistical evidence in serial killer nurse cases are outlined, and procedures are described in order to mitigate those problems. These cases have special features which make them especially difficult to investigate and try. Miscarriages of justice in such cases are therefore, not surprisingly, relatively common. Richard Gill (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find @Gill110951: being banned from the Monty Hall problem page, but I can find Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Gill110951_reminded him being reminded "to follow good practice in respect of conflict of interest, when referencing or inserting his own sources of his own authoring into the article as references, namely to avoid undue weight, use reliable sourcing, be able to demonstrate such if asked and to seek consensus first if editing in a contentious segment of mainspace". DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Gill, defamation that is written is called libel ("slander" is defamation that is spoken), but regardless, you risk an indefinite sitewide block for violating the legal threats policy. Yes, even if someone had claimed you "designed and constantly edited the Wikipedia article about [yourself]" — though I don't see any evidence of that having been said (none was provided). El_C 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if I can add some clarity without coming off as sententious. Gill110951, there don't appear to have been any deletions (although as a non-admin, it's possible I'm missing something). You did originate the Richard D. Gill article on 31 October 2006; the pre-existing article, Richard Gill (physicist), was created on 6 March 2006 by Njerseyguy to distinguish from Richard Gill (conductor), who had previously been the subject of the Richard Gill article (they moved that article and converted the redirect into a DAB page). Also on 31 October, you corrected and expanded the "physicist" page then attempted to redirect it to the new article: sum of your changes; someone else later completed the redirecting. You either didn't think to move it or were still too new an editor to be able to do so.

Both experts and other Wikipedia editors need to be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM, including on noticeboards, and especially on topics where emotions run high. We're not here on this project, or here at AN/I, to judge the veracity or desirability of things. Assertions need to be kept so far as possible to what's best for the article(s) and supported by reliable sources. This is one reason we strongly discourage autobiographies and other COI editing; with the best will in the world, it's hard to maintain the necessary distance to write neutrally where one is personally invested. But it's also an aspect of the BLP policy; editors have a duty to avoid writing about living people anywhere on Wikipedia in a non-neutral, non-citation-supported manner. And that includes article subjects who are also declared Wikipedia editors. (We also have a policy or guideline against discussing article content matters at noticeboards, which in part stems from the need to separate article issues from editor behaviour. I think this discussion has stepped a bit far over that line.) Gill110951, things have become more bureaucratic here, that's true, and there are more policy and guideline pages now, but if after reviewing WP:COI in particular, you believe your partial block from one or more of those three pages should be lifted, follow the instructions in the last sentence of the block notice and ask for an unblock (whole or partial) there. El_C, in referring to the editor being hostile, I think you may have missed the context of the comment for which he apologized; you linked the apology in the block notice. See the earlier stages of that conversation, as I noted at the the AN. I haven't looked at Talk:Lucy Letby, but have there been any further personal attacks? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss that context, so I stand partially corrected (pun unintended). But in fairness, I also didn't say "personal attacks." Not to play on semantics, but I said "aggression." Which, in my view that talk page does display some, though granted nothing too egregious. Still, how are editors expected to respond to comments such as I have exchanged many emails with him in the past concerning the Ben Geen case and I think I know him a lot better than you do @04:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)? Or the markedly projective This is yet another example of the heavy bias caused by the COI of many editors of this page, who themselves are convinced that Lucy is guilty @12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)? Personally, I'd advise Richard Gill against appealing on the basis of his conflict of interest because, well, obviously there is one, which he does not deny. And he was warned about it repeatedly, including, we learned, in the 2011 Arb case that features #Gill110951_reminded. So a longstanding problem with no resolution in sight absent the sanctions I imposed. But they are free to appeal as they see fit, of course. I note, though, that one reason I restricted him from the talk page was, indeed, numerous WP:FORUM violations. Another was him inappropriately placing his own WP:BURDEN on others, as with the main article. And now, as of a few hours ago, we have a legal threat, without Gill even informing us who had purportedly defamed him, no link, nothing. I don't know about you, but I find all that quite subpar. I actually think the community has been rather patient with him, if anything. El_C 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear El_C, I have not made any legal threat. I did not spell out those comments on the Lucy Letby talk page about me which I experienced as defamatory of me, because I am not vindictive, and am certainly not going to waste time fighting about this. It seems difficult to get the point across that I felt that I was being attacked by editors who believe that Lucy is guilty. She is convicted, yes, but that does not imply that she is guilty. She might be innocent. She claims to be innocent, and we hear that an appeal is being applied for. The page is largely being edited by editors who, it seems to me, are not taking a neutral point of view. Lucy Letby is a living person and she might be innocent of the crimes for which she has been convicted by an incomplete jury which could not come to a unanimous decision. Richard Gill (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Gill, briefly because I'm writing in haste. If you have any problems that might involve litigation, you can forward those to [email protected]. But don't make accusations of defamation onwiki, especially un-evidenced ones. Including vague ones, as that creates a chilling effect. Thank you. El_C 18:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Slander is a specific legal category, so accusing someone of slandering (or libeling) you carries the implication that you might consider legal action. Hence WP:LEGAL comes into play. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Further, you have a distinct misunderstanding of NPOV: Lucy Letby is convicted, therefore until such a conviction is overturned she is considered guilty by every reasonable standard. Reliable sources will refer to her as guilty per that conviction. The neutral thing in this case is to refer to her as guilty, as that is how the facts stand. Saying she might be innocent is speculative and goes against Wikipedia's standards and processes, see WP:CRYSTAL.

By your reasoning, we could never call someone guilty because they "may" be innocent. I'm afraid that's just not going to fly, and you're going to have to accept that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

From what I gathered, the reasoning is all appeals having been exhausted. But that is, of course, neither the standard of modern jurisprudence nor that of Wikipedia, as reflected in WP:BLPCRIME, etc. Rather, it is: presumption of innocence until conviction -contra- once convicted, presumption of guilt until an appeal succeeds. HTH. El_C 03:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not my reasoning. You are misrepresenting my arguments. Moreover, you are refusing to assume good faith intentions in my side. But never mind, let’s all calm down and watch out for a new news cycle coming up soon. Richard Gill (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, let's not. Do not do the same thing again with another criminal case. Lessons from this need to be absorbed. El_C 05:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Possible undisclosed paid editing and/or meatpuppetry at Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback)

Coffee765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been at least 11 accounts over the last few years that edited Bryan Scott (quarterback) or its talk page that were paid by or on behalf of the subject of the article (disclosed and undisclosed) and subsequently indeffed (there's a list on the top of the talk page). The subject is notable but does not receive a ton of traffic, so whenever a new user edits the article or talk page and has no edits to other pages, it usually turns out to be another paid editor or sockpuppet. I indefinitely extended-confirmed-protected the article in March 2021 because of the sockfarms. Another new user whose only edits have been to the talk page popped up (Coffee765) with requests to make changes to the page, which I initially responded to from a content standpoint ([28]). With this article I fear I have been toeing the line with WP:INVOLVED and would like other administrators to chime in here. I would also like a review of the indefinite article protection since it has been 2.5 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The only way to check the potential of disruption might be to remove the protection for some time and watch. What do you say? Lourdes 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eagles247@Lourdes Thank you for bringing attention to this. I am not a sockpuppet or a paid account. Honestly just a fan of Bryan Scott's and think his page should reflect the awards he has rightfully earned. I am a fan of the CFL, and as he has entered the league I googled him and wanted to learn about him and realized some of his awards/relevant facts are not published on his wiki. Coffee765 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Coffee765, when your first edit at Wikipedia mentions that you have posted this earlier as an edit request, it is logical to presume that you have operated with other accounts earlier. Lourdes 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Understood how that could seem, but I have just become a fan of Scott's since he joined the CFL. (Why my first edit was Toronto Argonauts related) Again as I stated before, I wanted to learn more about him and usually Wikipedia is the perfect place to do so- but when I noticed some of the achievements I had been hearing about Scott (through social media and in game attendance via word of mouth) were not even on his own wiki article- that is when I began diving deeper. I just want to make sure he (along with other players) get the recognition they all deserve. Only trying to help these players and Wikipedia for that matter! I would really appreciate if administrators could take a look at the edit requests I have presented, along with the resources as proof, to justify as to why these requests are factual records that should be added to Scott's page. Coffee765 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No one "deserves" recognition on Wikipedia. Flat out, full stop, no.

Anything you wish to add here must have reliable, independent sources and be duly balanced with their overall importance to the subject matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds ok then- remove the "deserves" - these are still edits that 'have reliable, independent sources and are duly balanced with their overall importance to the subject matter.' Any edit request I have made has been supported by widely known, fact based sources - and these edit requests are suggested based on the completion or revisions of other professional football players pages. Any request I have asked for is not an opinion based edit request, but a fact based edit. It almost seems that others (wikipedia administrators) are purposely taking edits down for their own opinion based perspectives. If I have an edit that is sourced from a reliable, independent source, and does not interfere with the overall balance of the page- should it not be added? Just trying to understand why these edits are not being added. For example- adding Scott's Spring League MVPs seems logical as the WP:NFLINFOBOX lists league MVPs as something that should be included. Again- just going off instructions from Wikipedia itself. Coffee765 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm not an administrator, and I happen to follow the CFL, and several of your requests are entirely offbase. You seem to feel, for instance, that The Spring League -- a glorified developmental and showcase camp that lasted four years, and wouldn't even rank as a minor league -- is a "predecessor" of the CFL (which in fact predates it by many decades). We do not list every "league MVP" ... what, Pop Warner leagues as well?

If you really do want to glorify Scott, feel free to set up a fan website. Here, however, in sports articles, we work with significant facts, significant records, coming out of significant competitions, and the great majority of that is top-flight competition. Ravenswing 19:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing Not sure why your tone has become so harsh? Clearly from your response you are bitter about me being a fan of Scott's? Which seems out of pocket.

Regardless of my fandom, everything I have listed has been a significant fact, significant record out of a significant competition. Nowhere have I not listed a reliable source to support evidential facts.

The Spring League showcased many players that are well known players in both the NFL and CFL. This by default shows that it is a 'significant competition.' Winning the MVP title should also serve as a 'significant record,' which again by default acts as a 'significant fact.'

In addition, two of the largest platforms for sports - Fox and ESPN- have recognized The Spring League on more than one account.- so not sure how you/wikipedia could not also recognize the league?

If we are looking at players we can use Johnny Manziel as an example- heard of him? Scott won the game they played against each other in the TSL. Manziel playing in this league just shows the caliber of talent needed to, again, make this a 'significant competition.'

I can send you a list of players from The Spring League if you'd like, including their stats to serve as a 'significant competition.'

Also belittling Pop Warner does not serve as help to you. Nowhere have I compared Pop Warner to other leagues.

Another question- if you are not an administrator did you come to this page just to act//respond negatively?

I am responding to you only to show others who read this that I am wanting to better Wikipedia as a whole by making sure the articles have factual information- and possibly flag those who are coming to pages with their biased opinions. Coffee765 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Coffee765, at ANI, editors mostly go right to the point and do not tarry on niceties -- one reason you might have felt the responses are flat on. On the other hand, your statement "I am wanting to better Wikipedia as a whole by making sure the articles have factual information" doesn't hold basis, as all you want to do is for one article. And if you've actually contributed to other articles, it would be good to know with which other accounts you have done. Eagles247, your indef protection seems okay for now, given the discussions above. If you have no other issues, we should close this discussion. Thanks, Lourdes 05:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I maintain that Coffee765 is more likely to be an undisclosed paid editor and/or sock/meatpuppet than a random Bryan Scott fan who happened upon the page, given the proliferation of similar accounts that have popped up at that article and the responses given by them here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

(nods) Certainly it's concerning that Coffee765 can think of no other reasons for opposing his stance other than "bitterness" (concerning the third-string QB for the Argos and a guy who's played all of three minor league matches? Seriously?!?) or bias, with the inference that it's inconceivable that other editors might have upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines as motives. Ravenswing 14:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• In a surprise plot twist that nobody was expecting, I can confirm that this account is a sock of BigBoyzz1006. Blocked and tagged. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Eagles247, if you're worried about involvement, I'm willing to unprotect, reprotect under ECP, and log under NEWBLPBAN under my signature, but I do not consider unprotection a good idea at all. Courcelles (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Courcelles: That would work. @Girth Summit: Thanks for handling that. This thread can be closed now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Eagles247 Done and logged. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Just to clarify things on this, as I missed most of this discussion but am aware of this article through Upwork. There's a client on Upwork who has been hiring paid editors for this article for some time, most recently to approve requests on the talk page. It is a fairly new technique that I've only seen a few times, but the client posts the requests to the talk page, the paid editor then implements the requests, and it all looks above board. Based on the SPI it may be that the client was in turn a paid editor subcontracting, as that happens from time to time as well. Anyway, I expect this may be ongoing in some form or other. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be interested if you could email me a link to the relevant Upwork page, Bilby. Looking through the contribs in the history, I see lots of accounts blocked as socks of various different masters - that makes sense if it's a bunch of requests that people are picking up as they come along rather than a single individual working on it long term. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hiring MULTIPLE paid editors to plump up this fringe football player? Either he has delusions of grandeur, or he's got a serious stalker and ought to lay in some security. Ravenswing 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't get over NSYNC starting back up again

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

---

• 2601:19A:4400:C10:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from New Hampshire is repeatedly returning the NSYNC article to past tense, which is a refusal to accept that the singing group is getting back together after so many years. The IP range has nine reverts so far, with no communication at all and no sign of stopping. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

+14 days partial. Tx, Lourdes 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is how I learn NSYNC is back together? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you're out of sync with current events. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the notability requirements for synchronized swimmers and I still don't have any idea what y'all are talking about. 2607:FB91:2DBD:29F:705A:8F25:922A:B7C7 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't really think they'd gone bye-bye-bye, did you? DMacks (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Edits without support of reliable sources from Abdullah1099

Abdullah1099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been engaging for months in edits that, on top of often being inaccurate or badly formatted, have always shown a lack of reliable sources in support. While this could be initially justified by his inexperience as Wikipedia editor, he has subsequently been advised many times by multiple editors in his talk page to pay attention to this kind of details (here, here and here for example). Despite that, and despite his positive messages of reception below those advices, he has never backed down from his disruptive behaviors, usually on a daily basis (this [29] being the last example as of today) forcing other editors to constantly check his movements to add the necessary corrections. Due to this behavior I would call for blocking this user from editing since he has shown multiple times his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules regarding the use of reliable sources and for the advices of more experienced editors.Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fm3dici97 WP:CIR issues. Second times. -Lemonaka‎ 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. And I've been understanding about potential problems caused by lack of experience or difficulties with adapting to Wikipedia standards. But as I tried to show, me and other editors tried multiple times to offer him friendly advices about how to properly edit Wikipedia. And not even once he came back by asking for suggestions or consulting with us on controversial matters. Instead, he kept going ignoring most of what we shared and kept doing things about which he had been explained multiple times how to behave, including:

• editing live events before having confirmation of the outcome (with the obvious result of wrong updates);
• adding unsourced content and/or modifying existing content without updating the sources;
• copypasting template entries with little to no attention to adapting their content to the contexts where they were used;
• ignoring indications explicitly mentioned as comments in the edited page (e.g. respecting alphabetical order when adding new items to a table) and so on;
• publishing articles with little (and unsourced) content.

This is the second time I resort to this noticeboard. The first time, two months ago, I've been asked to be patient and to try to be the first in engaging him in talk pages. I tried, but despite that the behavior hasn't changed, with the result that his edits have to be regularly corrected. I can accept another indication to wait, but this raises a question: where to draw the line? Where does lack of competence turn into lack of will to respect consensus and rules? Fm3dici97 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I mean they need a CIR block. Not a clause for their behaviour. -Lemonaka‎ 12:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Who can enact such a thing? Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Tanzim Hasan Sakib

Looks to be more than a content dispute--there's a lot of warring by multiple accounts over controversial content. Needs some sorting out to determine whether we're looking at WP:BLP violations or whitewashing. And then page protection once that's done. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, doesn't seem like whitewashing to me. WELLKNOWN applies to this sportsperson who, as per reports, gave misogynist remarks, and then apologised, claiming his mother is a woman (!!!).[30] If you want NPOV, perhaps someone can consider adding his apology. Thanks, Lourdes 05:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Complaint about corrupt editors here

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

---

Ranting

If you review what happened to me, the editors did not follow due process, or established ethical standards. They ignored everything that happened to me, while picking out what they could to get me banned. It was also a conspiracy, which in most state law constitutes a serious crime. In administration it should be seen as systemically corrupt. This has to change and the system should be revamped. These people also felt free to cast insinuations, insults themselves, and did so brazenly without fear of retribution from the administration. This indicates they are accustomed to the process and never punished. All the people should be fired and have all access to wikipedia stripped. The system has to be revamped under penalty of being fired, to force these corrupt idiots (verging on criminality), from menacing and harassing users any longer (much in the case of reddit). There's seriously corrupt people running this site and it has to be addressed.Meroitte (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Waggers was the culprit editor who instituted the corrupt ban. The rest are colluders. Meroitte (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Having just come off a block for personal attacks, the editor posted the above and changed their talk page to refer to many other editors as "morons" (I have revdeleted that). We're done here, so I have indeffed with TP revoked. Black Kite (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You didn't actually revoke their talk page access according to the block log, FYI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

We all make little mistakes from time to time. I have revoked the talk page access of the ranting and raving editor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

OK that's weird, because the block tool posted the correct red block message that you'd expect when the TPA box is ticked ... but it didn't produce the correct block? Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually forget that, just me being an idiot :) Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Non-communicative editor with multiple issues

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

Curvasingh, despite prior warning[31], adds poor citations to Times of India and to the tabloid Toronto Sun in topics of international disputes involving India at Hardeep Singh Nijjar[32], as well as in BLP articles at Raksha Gupta[33]. I am concerned specifically that they are pushing a pro-India POV with their repeated[34][35][36][37] additions of disparaging content towards the recently deceased Nijjar, whose death has caused a diplomatic row between Canada and India.

They are a non-communicative editor with 0 User_talk edits in their 2 year editing history. See also their creation of Draft:StencilJS, which was sent to draftspace after an AfD, the nominator saying that it was, "...written from a possibly bias POV and the article is not written as it should be on an encyclopaedia. Not from a neutral perspective and sounds like an advertisement." The edit history of the draft also shows that this user introduced a copyright violation into it.[38]

I came here initially to ask that they get a mainspace block to wake them up and get them to communicate, but having found the StencilJS draft, I am questioning if they are WP:NOTHERE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

For what is worth, they does communicate when their articles get AfDs ([39]). A partial block from the article for them may get them to use the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblock review, please?

Sometimes unblock requests linger for a long time. User:Marginataen has been waiting for a month and 15 days. Could somebody kindly take a look? Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC).

No -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I commented there. Mostly acceptable. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Going through all that obtuseness is a slog. I am unconvinced that this editor will be a net positive to the encyclopedia if unblocked. Maybe another administrator might be more optimistic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a look and am moderately more optimistic. I've left a comment there. Incidentally, @Bishonen (and @anyone else unhappy with the current system), I've got an idea in the works for an overhaul of the unblock system. Let me know if you're interested to be pinged once I have something halfway presentable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I'm going to ping a few admins I often see working the unblock queue, just as a heads up on this. Yamla, 331dot, Jpgordon. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Me too, Tamzin. Deeply interested and happy to work toward specific changes in this area. --Yamla (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Asie kij

• Asie kij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Throwaway vandalism account whose edits consist of basic copyediting above the fold in the preview window, but template-breaking edits further down. Reported at AIV, declined by HJ Mitchell on the basis that AIV is for obvious vandalism only with the suggestion that it be brought here. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What it looks like is someone who's making changes suggested by their browser's spell-checker; for example the main template-breaking edits are changing "cite" to "site". Not all the edits are bad; for example this seems like a uniform improvement. I think it's incompetence, not intentional vandalism. --174.77.91.240 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

174.77.91.240, the edits you called "a uniform improvement" included changing "5 cm" to "5  cm", preventing the no-break-space from keeping the number and its units together and putting too much space between them instead. It is the sort of thing that might be done by a piece of grammar-checking software that knows enough to put spaces after semicolons but not enough to distinguish punctuation from special-character-coding. It is not an improvement at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; my eyes slid past that paragraph of the diff. (The changes to the other three paragraphs are fine.) I agree about the grammar-checking. 174.77.91.240 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the guy wiped a huge chunk off an article about Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes in the middle of a fucking war between these two parties. Pretty well deserved indef. Ostalgia (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

revoke TPA and extend block of 142.190.0.194

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

---

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

talk page abuse. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Dwinug

Dwinug (talk · contribs) was blocked in September 2022 for repeated addition of unsolved content to BLPs. Two unblock requests were denied on the basis that the use didn't understand the issue, see User talk:Dwinug#Blocked. In the past 12 months, this user has received multiple warnings from multiple users for continuing this behaviour - unsourced content on BLPs. They have never responded and never changed - and their behaviour is ongoing, see e.g. this.

Given the long history of unsourced additions to BLPs, despite a block and warnings, I think a longer block is now warranted. GiantSnowman 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Dwinug for persistently adding unsourced content to BLPs despite multiple warnings and a previous block. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #78956 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

Please justify why you reversed my edits? I have researched this man's life for close on 20 years now and have related books about him in various universities throughout the world. Please present your reasoning. 82.38.214.91 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Item 1:provide diffs. Item 2: notify all parties. Item 3: its on you to provide sources for info added, not us. Item 4: no more than 3 reverts to article in a 24 hour period (WP:3RR). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not deal with content issues. But since you are here, my observations are that Template: Circa is the best way to indicate date uncertainty, and that it is unnecessary to describe a signature as handwritten, when that is obvious from the image. You should discuss any concerns at Talk:Bertram Fletcher Robinson or with the editor who reverted you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Harrassment over an image

There has been an edit dispute with CorrectieTik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the article Iblis. The issue started with [version]. The other user added in their edit summary "Much clearer, more SPECIFIC and direct image of Iblis which is 1.more accepted by scholars 2. gives the layman a better idea of the figure of Iblis. 3. was the main image before", wheras I responded in my [[40]] revert: "it was the imagine before" is not an arguement. 2. how is this a better idea of the figure of Iblis, if only the black figure and the turban is present and none of the other comon features? 1. No there is no scholary consensus. There isn't even a citation about that. It is a Siyah Kalam on which it was considered to be Iblis, but this isn't even for certain." Thereupon the other user [my revert]. What started bothering here is the edit summary "I made a good argument, nothing I said is disputed by you. Stop the vandalizing. Start a talk if you dont agree WITH arguments" ignoring the point by point edit sumamry, why the revert was a bad idea. However, since this looks like it is going to become a dispute, I went to the [[41]] talkpage of the article. The other User, however, ignored to comment on the talkpage, and [reverting again] and left message [on my talkpage] (see section called Iblis). I tried to make the user aware that the proper discussion is the talkpage of the article. Since it seems to be a new user, I explained them the third revert rule, and admonished them to calm down so we can solve this dispute. The responses however, there filled with hostiliy, personal attacks, and accusations while ignoring everything I put forth both on my talkpage and the talkpage of the article. The condenscending tone and talking down in their writing makes me uncomfrotable and I see no way to properly hold a discussion with the User anymore. That they decided to treat Users like this if they disagree with them, also makes me doubt if they are willing to contribute to the Wiki project in any positive way. I informed the User on their talkpage [[42]].VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)" (This line will disappear when you save this edit.)

There has been an edit dispute with VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the article Iblis. The issue started with [version]. I changed the first picture of the article with this edit summary: "Much clearer, more SPECIFIC and direct image of Iblis which is 1.more accepted by scholars 2. gives the layman a better idea of the figure of Iblis. 3. was the main image before"

And without any good reason it was changed back. Over and over again. The picture ALREADY featured IN the article, so clearly it is an acceptable depiction of the figure of Iblis. This is even agreed upon by user VenusFeuerFalle: as he/she is reverting it back to the version with the SAME picture depicted in another part of the page.

The issue(s): 1. The picture I posted as the main/first picture was already on the page (center)

2. User VenusFeuerFalle does not seem to dispute the picture itself, but is just changing it back to the center of the page

3. The picture featured as the main/first picture before

4. The picture VenusFeuerFalle prefers has SEVERAL figures in the picture making it hard for people to find out who is the actual figure of Iblis, since the article is ABOUT Iblis and not about the other figures it seems logical to have a main/first picture with the actual figure on it ALONE. Example: in an article about Michael Jackson would one prefer a main/first picture of Michael Jackson ALONE or a picture with his brothers of the Jackson Five?

5. I have explained my reasoning clearly, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not open to any discussion. He/she acts as if he/she is the boss. I am not making a radical change as this picture was/is already on the page: also to the satisfaction of user VenusFeuerFalle! Otherwise the picture would have been removed all together by him/her I assume. It was not. So:

6. This is just a dispute about the position of the picture IN the article. Which seems really strange: user VenusFeuerFalle has NOT explained why he/she is so concerned about it being the main picture but he/she is fine with it being in the article elsewhere.

7. User is rude, unfriendly and refuses to explain its motives. Just tells me I should listen to him/her (why? Is he/she above me? My superior?). Complains I am new (I'm not) as if this is supposedly a reason to start a revert 'war' (over nothing). Bullying is wrong. CorrectieTik (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle, where is the proof of "harassment"? Just quote a sentence or two accompanied by a pertinent WP:DIFF, to start with. Everyone: it's best to keep arguments over the content dispute itself to a minimum, as that falls outside the scope of this noticeboard. El_C 04:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've full-protected the page. CorrectieTik, once your edit was reverted, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss. VenusFeuerFalle, you (more) and CorrectieTik are bound to be blocked for edit warring. Please follow dispute resolution in case your talk page discussions fail. Once the protection expires, CorrectieTik, if you revert again without consensus to change, you will be blocked. Please be careful. Thanks, Lourdes 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I accept that. But the page was reverted back again by VenusFeuerFalle right in the middle of this dispute.

A warning to him/her would also be appropriate then. Or am I the only one who can't edit now? Basically he/she has its way now with the old picture being up without anything resolved. Seems you are taking sides.

Either way: I am not wanting to get blocked over the position of a picture in an article, so I will wait for any administrator to see and read for themselves hiw ridiculous this dispute is over a picture user VenusFeuerFalle accepts as well, but he/she just disputes the position (bizarre) of the picture in the article. CorrectieTik (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Correctie, there are no sides being taken. I have reverted the article to the stable version before you and Venus started edit-warring. Please go to the talk page to gain consensus for the change. Thanks, Lourdes 09:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My pronounce are literally "they/them", show at least a decent amount of respect. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I failed about 30 minutes to properly convert the version differences. This is the best result I could get by following the advise at H:DIFF. Whenever I enter the link on this apge, it doesn't display the entire URL.

[43]: "This user is constantly reverting additions I have made to the article about Iblis. I have given good reasons for the image change. But without reason ('oh you are not correct' is hardly a good reason) it is reverted. This user is not the 'boss' of the article, and has to accept different views on the subject. Especially because the picture I changed and added as the main/first picture, was on top of the page before. So there is no doubt the image is a correct depiction of the figure of Iblis. Further reverting back is just bordering vandalism by now. And this needs to stop. This isn't about ego, but about creating a platform with correct information. Which I tried doing, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not". These are blantant lies, as I did (as shown in the links of my initial comment on this subject) The user chooses to ignore me and then blame for doing things I haven't done. They also speak about me in the third person on my own talkpage.

next, they just decided that my revert was a form of vandalism and keeps on insisting I did on the further comments[44]:

"You keep on with reverting back without even replying here. You are vandalizing"

Condescending talk, as if this user needs to berate me, especially about things I haven't done and insists on their own version of that is going on, still ignoring all attempts for a dispute resolution [45]: "I made several arguments, to which you did not reply. You dont get to threaten me with "youre going to be in trouble". I suggest you leave the picture alone, as you 1. have not given any valid reason to be against the picture 2. The picture features on the page anyway, so why do you care so much if its on top or in the middle? It seems utterly useless to pick this fight with me. Again: you are not the boss or owner of the article."

Here the person starts writing in Caps, accuses me of vandalism, threats, and continues all attempts to bring the original issue to the talkpage, keeping getting personal [46]

"You dont reply at all to arguments iv made. And this is a good place to discuss your behavior of reverting changes made by people. As this is an issue with YOU not the page about Iblis. As the pictures features on the page anyway. So this is about you vandalizing and threatening me, so it belongs on YOUR talk page."

After saying that they aren't listening, they are on the wrong page, they just respond with the condescending words: "You listen to ME" [47]

Now they started, while this discussion here is open, a new section on my talkpage (I reverted this because I am tired of these types of comments by the user, which don't contribute to the original issue) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVenusFeuerFalle&diff=1176406700&oldid=1176330838, and trying to shift the discussion to the edit-war while the issue is something entirely else. To the issue I emphazised they decided to turn a blind eye on:

"Starts an editing war over the POSITION of an image on the Iblis page.

So understand this: User does NOT dispute the picture itself! But does not want the picture to be featured on top of the page! Will only accept the picture to be placed in the center of the page. When I change it back the user files a complaint on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Get this: a user complaint filed against me because of the place of a picture in an article.... Then gets confrontational and bossy as well. "LISTEN TO ME!"...." They completely twists what I said. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The version differences are all within my initial comment regarding this matter and linked. I don't know why but the links appear in numbers. Please check the link or my talkpage. I reverted the last recent offensive comment, because I don't want to itneract with this user anymore. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I get that Lourdes wants to wrap this report up, but I don't like un-proven claims of WP:HARRASMENT to just be left hanging there — see WP:ASPERSIONS. So we'll see what VenusFeuerFalle has to say about that. El_C 09:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Against the accusatiions of User CorrectieTik? I don't think any of these points apply. Here is what I have to say about each point:

"The issue(s): 1. The picture I posted as the main/first picture was already on the page (center). My response: I have no issue with the image itself, but since this is merely a folkloric tale figuring this figure, I supoose it doesn't belong to the top but to the folkloric section about undefined traditions. I made this clear in my first response back in an edit summary before this situation escalated.

2. User VenusFeuerFalle does not seem to dispute the picture itself, but is just changing it back to the center of the page. My response: This is exactly point 1.

3. The picture featured as the main/first picture before: and before this one was the main picture [and the Angels watched by Iblis.jpg - Wikimedia Commons|this one was the main image]

4. The picture VenusFeuerFalle prefers has SEVERAL figures in the picture making it hard for people to find out who is the actual figure of Iblis, since the article is ABOUT Iblis and not about the other figures it seems logical to have a main/first picture with the actual figure on it ALONE. Example: in an article about Michael Jackson would one prefer a main/first picture of Michael Jackson ALONE or a picture with his brothers of the Jackson Five? My response: What has this todo with the conversation here? The user could have brought this to the talkpage as I recommended. But they choose to ignore this and blame me for vandalism.

5. I have explained my reasoning clearly, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not open to any discussion. He/she acts as if he/she is the boss. I am not making a radical change as this picture was/is already on the page: also to the satisfaction of user VenusFeuerFalle! Otherwise the picture would have been removed all together by him/her I assume. It was not. So: My response: First, I really don't see a reason to gender me, but whatever, second, yeh I acknowledged their points and responded to each of them. Unlike they did to my points.

6. This is just a dispute about the position of the picture IN the article. Which seems really strange: user VenusFeuerFalle has NOT explained why he/she is so concerned about it being the main picture but he/she is fine with it being in the article elsewhere. My response: No it is not. And still have explained each point they made.

7. User is rude, unfriendly and refuses to explain its motives. Just tells me I should listen to him/her (why? Is he/she above me? My superior?). Complains I am new (I'm not) as if this is supposedly a reason to start a revert 'war' (over nothing). Bullying is wrong. My response: They did come to my page with a condensencing tone, ignored all my advises to behave properly, ignored all links to Wikipedia guidlines, and started accusing me and starting writing in caps. I don't think that "listen to me" was bossy, especially since it lacks context. The user ignored everything I wrote and was totally missing the point of each of my replies. Also I didn't said "listen to me", I said "please listen to me". They also ommited that I said "and bring your concerns to the talkpage. You know that. I am going to be nice and do this for you". It was about thee times trying to explain them, my talkpage is the wrong place to discuss this. At this point still ignoring their behavior. I did my best to reply in good faith to the user. I pinged him on the Iblis talk page. They are aware of the talkpage feature, but decided to keep writing unpleasent replies on my talkpage, after several times asking them to stop. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

CorrectieTik, this is a content dispute. Nobody has performed any vandalism. Just discuss it in a civil manner on the article talk page, which is there for that purpose, and go to dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement there. Take special note of the second sentence in that link. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeated removal of CSD tag by IP

Resolved

• 170.80.111.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• White Americans in San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite multiple reversions and pleas by both myself and Magic Fizz to stop this anonymous user from repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag placed on this article, despite multiple warnings and a valid Contested deletion post on the Talk page, the editor still insists on removing the tag themselves. Is there any administrator available for intervention? Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Outcome: IP blocked, page protected. That page is now a redirect again, as it was prior. Not sure why at some point reverting the IP's standalone with the original redirect was supplanted to doing so with a speedy tag, as there is nothing in particular to delete (not that it matters). Otherwise, marking this as resolved. El_C 03:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Working on a script to help editors make report here

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

---

I'm currently working on a script to help editors make reports here more conveniently, since some cases are really simple and obvious but take time to report them manually, e.g. revoking TPA due to talk page abuse. This idea came from the WarningDialogue on metawiki.

The first version is on User:Lemonaka/WD.js. However, it is buggy. I also afraid I might reinvent the wheel. But Twinkle and Redwarn are all working on WP:AIV instead of here, so I'm not sure and asking for helps from experts here. -Lemonaka‎ 23:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: This is not an AN/I issue and should not be raised here. WP:VPI, WP:VPT or WT:ANI would be more appropriate, the first one would probably the best, IMO. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. moved to WP:VPI -Lemonaka‎ 23:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting rollback on myself

Resolved

I was doing a backlinks check on a spam page that I was about to CSD like I always do, but I had the Wikipedia page open in another tab and oops. I hit the wrong button but accidentally did a bunch of bad unlinks. Sorry! I deserve a trout. Seawolf35 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it, you have rollback enabled, so why not do it yourself? El_C 05:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I got rate limited, I will do it myself. Sorry. Seawolf35 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what that is. I'm happy to do it, though, if you're capped somehow. I just didn't understand the reason. El_C 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I undid the unlinks. Resolved. Seawolf35 (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll mark is accordingly. I'm guessing the unbundled WP:ROLLBACK is, as you say, rate limited (I learn something new). El_C 05:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C: Non-admins/bots have a rate limit of I believe 100 edits per minute, which rarely matters except with mass-rollback like this. I ran into the limit several months ago mass-rollbacking Cewbot when it was malfunctioning. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 06:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@El CI got rate limited when I hit the wrong button and twinkle tried undoing thousands of backlinks at once. The rate limit carried over when I was trying to rollback myself to fix the edits that did happen. Seawolf35 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the purpose of rate-limiting rolllback? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe to just have a check and balance against planned mass server attacks? Lourdes 08:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Most likely, and a rate limit on edits is good for when idiots like me hit the wrong button. Seawolf35 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

User:AdwenKnowItAll

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

---

User:AdwenKnowItAll has been engaged in a pattern of disruptive edits. They reword sections of articles in a way that adds no information and which, thanks to their poor grammar, is harder to read. They've also been editing music-related articles to add questionable niche genres to infoboxes.

Their talk page shows that they've been asked to stop many times, since 2017, but haven't responded. They were also temporarily blocked for it in March.

Some samples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_of_Cowboy_Bebop&diff=prev&oldid=1171534655

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_Goodwin&diff=prev&oldid=1157509841

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mockbuster&diff=prev&oldid=1062240005

Vlcice (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:AdwenKnowItAll#Indefinite_block. El_C 05:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Revoke TpA for User:Buildwell architects

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

---

Buildwell architects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Buildwell_architects They should probably have their TpA revoked as they were blocked as a promotion-only account and they are still posting promotional content onto their talk page. Seawolf35 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done sheesh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent small edits on multiple pages by User:Landnama

User:Landnama account was created on 14 August 2023, but already received 583 edits. In the account Special:Contributions/Landnama found persistent small edits (which could be done in one or few, like adding internal link "[[ ]]" was done on multiple edits instead per thing/person, or adding categories with similar proceeding) in short period of time between edits on multiple pages, such as in United Nations special rapporteur, Surya Subedi, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (which most of it already been stripped), Phoebe Okowa, and many more.

Note: For the information, I found this page from WP:DE in WP:DDE section. I'm also new user but from 2020 (so feel free to correct me if I made a mistake), but after 3 years with relatively consistent edits, I can't grasp how someone manage to get 500+ edits in just 1 month. It really shocked me ngl. O_O

Best regards, EdhyRa (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• You need to inform them on their talk page when you report them here. That is mandatory. In the meanwhile, Landnama, what is your relation with Surya Subedi, an article which now looks like a hagiography after your multiple edits? Thanks, Lourdes 07:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I forgot to go to the talk page. I'm still doing other edits too. On the way (edit: you already done it, thank you again, sorry for trouble). Thank you for reminding. EdhyRa (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• @EdhyRa: What are you actually reporting here? Making 500 edits a month isn't particularly unusual. Making lots of small edits when you could make one big one is mildly annoying but not grounds for anything more than a polite request on their talk page. Am I missing something? – Joe (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  The only thing that could possibly be report-worthy is if this user has been gaming extended confirmed status. Is there any evidence of that, such as performing actions that are only allowed to people with extended confirmed? Edit count is meaningless except for confirmed and extended confirmed status. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is still no evidence about that, but for evidence for small edits is here (some of it):

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_J._Busuttil&diff=prev&oldid=1173868611

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surya_Subedi&diff=prev&oldid=1173868450

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoebe_Okowa&diff=prev&oldid=1173868352

  In this cases, he/she did the exact +40 edit by adding empty "| death_date = | death_place = " parameters in their infobox (on alive person), and his/her reason is "(Added | death_date = | death_place (both empty) to Infobox (planning ahead).)", why? EdhyRa (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I just found the evidence of page creation that neither passed through WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC by @Landnama because of their extended confirmed status (status flag update were given on 14 Sep 23, but they already reached 500 edits on 7 Sep 23 at 04:49 UTC [48], see [49] for their logs):
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=151883473 (already Congregation Etz Ahaim Sephardic)
    • This article was created on 7 Sep 23 at 20:19 UTC, just almost 16 hours after passed 500 edits.
  • Prior to that, they tried to create Haim Baruh article on 5 Sep 23:
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=151792895 (currently still Draft:Haim Baruh)

  I hope this can resolve the issue. EdhyRa (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, I definitely know of one thing only extended confirmed users can do... and it's related to me, but beans. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  According to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS point 1, I suspect he/she making Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time", but just like I said, I'm still newbie and didn't actually understand yet about this matters policy, that's why I reached here for guide as from WP:DDE instruction, because I'm might be wrong about 'tendentious edit' thing.

  Also, I'm quite aware about 500 edits a month, but from my experience it is usually from either alt account or bot. It is unusual for new users did that, am I right? Also, it not just 'normal' edits, like I said it is small separated edits which could be done in 1 run, but intentionally done it in multiple runs. Thank you for replying. EdhyRa (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Landnama is confirmed to be doing this with two accounts. They are also using Fagur. I’m on the fence about how disruptive this all is, I’ve not taken any admin action yet. Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  User:Fagur account was created on 13 September 2023, but made first edit on 16 September, however started doing 'excessive spam edits' on 18 September 2023 (literally 1 day after User:Landnama last edit on 17 September 2023 − which was reverted) by doing continuously +4 ("[[ ]]") internal link edit on these pages (on majority): Patricia Bartley, Deborah Kerr, Emily Anderson, and Alexander Anderson (physicist). Already making 71 edits in span of 3 days (5 days since created) since the first edit.

  Thank you for the information, man. Appreciate it. EdhyRa (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  After consideration, I've blocked both accounts. They need to discuss the concerns not just wait them out, and this feels like extended confirmed was being gamed by multiple accounts. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Idk what to say tbh. This is actually my first experience regarding this matter. This begin when I curiously see via WP:XC on WP:UAL then clicked Special:ListUsers/extendedconfirmed. Then, checking "Sort by creation date" and "Sort in descending order" (see [50]), I immediately shocked seeing many users account was created on the period of July-Aug-Sep 23 already extended confirmed. But, I quickly aware that the top 5 on the list is either alts or energetic users. However, at 6th place which is @Landnama, their edits was unusual that's impossible to not notice.

  Also, is this issue already resolved (and should be closed)? or wait for them to reply in this topic?

  Also again, thank you so much to you all who spent your time to hear my request. I really appreciate it. EdhyRa (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  EC is only 500 edits and 30 days, so it's entirely reasonable to see August creation dates hitting it. ANI threads usually get archived pretty quickly if folks stop talking, so there's no need for a formal closure. I've left them instructions on how to request an unblock, but since they are blocked, that would be handled on their talk page, not here. (Which, if they're reading, will be easily granted provided you don't sock anymore and engage. This is not a permeant block!) Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel hounded at and attacked by User:Veverve on non-Roman Catholic articles, and my talk page

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

---

For a few days I have been engaged in a content dispute on the page for Liberal Catholic Church by User:Veverve. Because some random users decided to add intentionally biased information from some Liberal Catholic Church Theosophical Synod, a lot of the information sourced was removed by Veverve in response to that other user's actions. In return, he also appears to have blanked the article with content that solely appears to besmirch the character of anyone that is not Roman Catholic. I have seen this with other contributions to their pages lately by going into their contributions list. Anything that does not come from one of their approved renditions of a reliable source are to be promptly removed. Communicating on my talk page I noted their history of being blocked for reacting harshly to editors in content disputes. To prevent myself from being blocked, I am taking this here as they so appeared to have challenged me to do so. Please look at the contributions history for the Liberal Catholic Church from yesterday (Sept 20) and today (Sept 21) to take a look. I will not be ran off this website by someone with a known history of disputes, who claimed I have attacked their character! AndreasMar (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please also look at Talk:Liberal Catholic Church for the horrible discussion. There is nothing fruitful that may come out of that talk discussion. AndreasMar (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? I can see nothing in the article history or its talk page that comes anywhere close to hounding or attacking or horrible. The editor has simply followed normal procedure by reverting changes that he did not think were supported by independent reliable sources and starting a perfectly civil discussion on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Veverve has done anything wrong here? You made an edit, they reverted it and started a talk page discussion where they lay out some completely reasonable objections to the edit on the basis of the sourcing used, stating that that there has been inappropriate use of primary sources, use of unreliable sources and that the content is not actually supported by the sources you provided. You proceeded to edit war and refused to engage on the talk page and actually discuss the concerns they raised. When you did go to the talk page you attacked and insulted Veverve claiming that they had no common sense and implied they were too stupid to understand your edit, made ridiculous claims they are "bullying" you then immediately filed an ANI thread? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of the comments above; the biggest problem here is this edit from @AndreasMar which is straying into personal attack territory. WaggersTALK 14:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

People, in my personal defense...the talk page discussion didn't come until after he and I kept reverting one another. The only difference is, I tried my best to add sources that would support the claims. The edit war happened before the talk page discussion ever came to be! I did not claim they had no common sense but referred to the note that we can edit and assume good faith off common sense. BUT, I did imply that they did not wish to discuss by using the methods of common sense to harmonize the material by reading and making some healthy statements as all information leads up to a certain point where things can be assumed as objective regarding their notability. I felt bullied by them because they look to be a veteran and no matter how many better sources I provided, they continued to be reverted. I even kept trying and trying and felt hounded at in summaries for not being good enough an editor here with gathering information. I felt bullied especially when it looked to me on my talk page that I was being challenged to take this there...so I did...this is how I feel about this situation. AndreasMar (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone please read my additions here, and read the WHOLE of the sources provided. Then, someone get back with me please. I have scoured so many databases and these are the best sources available. AndreasMar (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody here is going to try to settle the content disagreement you seem to be having - that's not the role of administrators, and not what this board is for. The standard procedure is that when you introduce new content and it is reverted by someone who thinks it inappropriate, you need to engage in a discussion on the article talk page and try to get a consensus - in a civil manner, without any personal attacks (and please do follow those three links and understand the policies they describe). The onus is on *you* as the one who wants to add the contested content to gain a consensus for its inclusion. If you can't get a consensus supporting the content you want, it simply doesn't go in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I felt bullied especially when it looked to me on my talk page that I was being challenged to take this there: I only asked you to take me to ANI because you have accused me by stating I was removing content [I] did not like and was POV-pushing on multiple WP articles related to Catholicism. Those are issues the ANI takes care of; if you make those accusations on your talk page, you must be able to support them at ANI. Why are you not raising those points here, and instead talk about a simple editing disagreements? Veverve (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My notifications were going off like crazy on my phone so let me stop to pull out this laptop and say this. First, I see where I have err'd here. Second, I am starting to understand and see where this is and should be going. Forgive my ignorance with this whole reporting situation. If anyone cares to read my latest response on the content dispute please go here: Talk:Liberal_Catholic_Church#Use_of_primary_and_non-reliable_sources. I do not want to waste anyone's time on this board anymore. AndreasMar (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly reverting a redirect draft against template advice

• Dynamic Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gonnym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Posting here to invite review of a silly edit war over this redirect, which is currently listed at redirects for discussion. The title refers to a design element first introduced with the iPhone 14 Pro and currently discussed there (and the redirect targets that section), but with the next iPhone also incorporating the same feature a proposal in the discussion is to create a separate article discussing the feature, since it now applies to several topics. When such a proposal is made at RFD it's quite common for an editor to create a draft of the proposal below the RFD template, and the template adds a hidden note advising that that is the case (the hidden note reads "Don't add anything after this line unless you're drafting a disambiguation page or article to replace the redirect." (emphasis added) This has been usual practice at least since I've been participating at RFD, since some time around 2014, and that text was added to Module:RfD back in 2018. There's no policy guidance on this, I don't think anyone ever considered that it would be necessary.

It seems that Gonnym, who has edited the module recently but did not alter the message, has suddenly decided to object to this practice by singling out this particular redirect and repeatedly reverting the draft, most recently insisting that a draft must be made elsewhere, for reasons they haven't said. It seems to me that they're doing this to make a point, and unnecessarily impeding the discussion in the process, and I would like them to knock it off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

for reasons they haven't said - that is completely true, unless you ignore my edit summary which read This is very not editor friendly to reach. Just move it to the actual draft namespace, or your userspace after which you did not enquire or ask any further clarification other than try and intimidate me with the edit warning on my user page right before you reverted for a second time.

I'm also unclear how It seems that Gonnym, who has edited the module recently but did not alter the message is relevent here? Did you mean me editing this to fix a lint issue meant that I actively read the entire code?

suddenly decided to object to this practice by singling out this particular redirect is there some kind of place I need to sign up before I'm allowed to edit a particular redirect? Please advice. On a more serious note, I suddenly came across this redirect as you made a draft with errors by adding a reference without a {{Reflist}}, which placed this page on list. While fixing other pages on the list, I saw this. Any other creative imagery text you want me to respond to? Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If your objection was over a missing reflist, an honest mistake on my part, the solution would be to add a reflist, not repeatedly revert the entire thing, and you could have said so at the time. I have no idea what you mean by "very not editor friendly to reach", but your suggestion to create the draft elsewhere instead of on the page being discussed wouldn't have made it any easier to "reach". As I said to you in my edit summary and explained above, drafting a proposal below a redirect nominated at RFD in order to illustrate the proposal is common; some examples: I-95 exit list, Coach Harbaugh, Coach Gruden are all currently listed and have proposals drafted below the redirect notice, and here are some from the past several years: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. You've also been an active participant at RFD for a number of years, you must have been aware that this is the case, so why revert this draft now out of the blue? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few more: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not particularly difficult to find more examples of this common practice, so I'll just add a few more to demonstrate that it's also a longstanding convention: this one from 2012, and another from 2010. On the contrary I'd like to know where you got "don't create a draft inside a redirect", considering that you ought to know from your own participation that this is, in fact, a common and longstanding practice in RFD discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

About several edits by Dominic Pringle

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

---

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

This user has repeatedly added unsourced information to articles, and just did so again today after their fourth warning. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry but who are you? Are you stalking me? Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle: Nope, I just happened to be notified because a message was added to § September 2023 on your talk page, which I'm subscribed to because I previously left you a message. I notice that this isn't the first time you've accused an editor of stalking when faced with criticism. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My last edit was pretty verifiable, and the content it replaced wasn’t even sourced

Anyway, I won’t make any more edits for a while if that makes you happy, you don’t have to try to get me banned Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Pringle, rather than go in all guns blazing with paranoid claims of stalking how about just following some of the advice that you have been given? Nobody knows who you, or any other editor, are, and what you know about a particular subject, so the only way we have to know that you are telling the truth is if you cite reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Not every harmless minor edit has to be quoting an elite media outlet

As long as it’s not likely to be challenged, it is harmless

I wasn’t gonna edit anymore for a while anyway, but it seems (Personal attack removed) is making it his mission to get me banned Dominic Pringle (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle: you need to acquaint yourself with some policies that apply to all editing here. One that you've already been repeatedly referred to is verifiability: in a nutshell it is not sufficient that you "know" something, you must provide a citation to a reliable source so that anyone else can verify the information you've added or changed. It is not strictly necessary to cite everything, but if your edit is challenged or reverted then you must provide a source before restoring the edit. It is also mandatory to add a citation to support any contentious information about living persons. Another is assume good faith: you should assume that every other editor is trying to help, unless you have a very good reason to think otherwise. If you always jump to the assumption that everyone is out to get you, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I suggest that you quickly familiarize yourself with the no personal attacks policy; I have removed the personal attack in your comment above. Please feel free to ask questions if any of this is not clear, but I must warn you that you are very close to being blocked from editing if you continue to ignore these policies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for not blocking me I guess

I only made minor edits that I thought weren’t controversial or likely to be challenged, I didn’t expect all this trouble

I couldn’t always cite an establishment media source, but the edits I made were harmless, true, and important, and I felt there was no reason whatsoever for anyone to challenge them or suspect them of being false....if there had been such a reason, I would’ve cited a source Dominic Pringle (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle, if you don't have any source for your edits, how do you know that they are "true"? And more importantly, why should anyone else believe that they are true? You really need to read WP:V. There are some very simple statements that are so well-known to every living person that they don't need to be cited, like that the sky is blue, but certainly not among such well-known truths are statements that a particular person was born out of wedlock, that a particular person was the third son of his parents, that a particular person had a difficult relationship with his mother, or that some skilled writers express no ideas in their writing (which is not only not uncontroversial, it seems blatantly false). Please acknowledge that you have read and understood our verifiability policy and will abide by it in the future. CodeTalker (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who knows about Peter Tosh knows he was born out of wedlock

Anyone who knows about Stefan Molyneux knows he had a difficult relationship with his mother

Anyone who knows about Max Crumb knows he had 2 older brothers, the wiki itself even mentions them and has links to their wiki pages!

The writer thing I can understand might be controversial, but there really ARE skilled writers who DON’T express ideas, such as clerks.... please leave the rest of my stuff alone if it’s harmless, and not likely to be false Dominic Pringle (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle: if those facts are so widely known, then you should have no difficulty finding reliable sources to support them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not EVERYTHING has to be quoting a media outlet

Only stuff that’s likely to be challenged or likely to be false Dominic Pringle (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia isn't intended as a work for "anyone who knows about" someone to add stuff. We explicitly reject people adding stuff based only on personal knowledge. I suggest you find some other project if that's how you want to edit since it sounds like your views on how Wikipedia should operate are in fundamental opposition to how we actually operate. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

OK

Can you all please leave me alone now?

I wasn’t gonna edit anymore for a while anyway Dominic Pringle (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've indef'd Dominic Pringle for NOTHERE. The simple fact that they refuse to acknowledge that WP:RS is required, and doubled down in this commentary alone tells me they are not here to build the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User talk:204.148.142.250

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

---

I'm not sure if this is escalating too quickly but this IP address has been editing very quickly, very often multiple articles per minute, to "fetch Wikidata" to make infoboxes on random biographies about women. Many, many of these have been reverted, and then the user has reverted back [69], mainly on reverts by User:Nikkimaria. The user has not put an edit summary for any of their actions. I spotted this user from their action on Marta Bosquet, which just drew an infobox around the photo, introducing no data whatsoever. [70]. A random click found this edit, where the "infobox" is no more than the title of the page! [71] And here's another one, albeit on a long-dead person. [72]

Fetching data from Wikidata, even if it is a Wikimedia website, fails WP:V as there is no oversight about whether the material is sourced or accurate, and most of these edits are on living people. Is there any way to do a mass revert? Can this user be slowed down so they make fewer of these pointless and confusing edits? Thanks Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP is continuing the edit pattern of two recently blocked accounts: Arnold Henry Guyot and Goudabuddha. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like User:NinjaRobotPirate has blocked the IP for month and their edits have been reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Incivility and Personal attacks by User:5staravenger

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

---

5staravenger editing his own article Alex Tan as claimed by him here and here.

Casting aspersions and borderline personal attack [73] on GMH MELBOURNE. Incivility and threats to sockpuppet [74]. Basically casting aspersions on me and incivility again [75].

Disruptive editing by 5staravenger on his own article and obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. JASWE (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fk you. 5staravenger (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no recourse to correct inaccuracies and false claims on my biography and the admins refuse to allow edits. Why do people get angry and go on a ruckus throwing f bombs? Think you idiot. 5staravenger (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think we've seen all we need to see here. I'd certainly support an indef block on 5staravenger, if no friendly admin beats us to it. The Alex Tan article could stand semi-protecting as well, presuming that 5staravenger means his threats. (With that, the article is a hot mess, pretty devoid of sourcing, and may need to be reverted to the last stable version before the SPAs got into it ... which is two years ago. Ravenswing 05:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fk you too. 5staravenger (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Aplenty of you pretentious pricks who have nothing to prove in real life compared to me. 5staravenger (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

nothing to prove in real life compared to me - LOL, if that isn't pretentious, I don't know what is. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Another threat to sock puppet on my talk: [76] ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There was also another account in the past who claimed to be the subject as well in the past. Or at least, the way he replies to anyone who disagrees with him is practically the same. And if its really the same guy, in his own words to conflict resolution - "Remove the page or we do this forever" ---- Zhanzhao (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account here and an associated sock. I think the article could use some more cleanup in the meantime. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

IP range block

• 2001:4451:948:6d00:f57e:c43f:b1e3:d07c (talk · contribs)
• 2001:4451:948:6D00:849B:2DB5:68D4:1822 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:4451:948:6d00:487e:18bd:8e1c:beaa (talk · contribs)

This IP range needs to be block due to disruptive edits accross Bus companies of the Philippines articles, violation to the WP:OR leaving without edit summary. Jjpachano (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjpachano what exactly is the disruption that is occurring? I opened a few diffs but I cannot see anything that is vandalism or obviously disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Victuallers and misuse of the admin tools

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

When looking at Special:NewPagesFeed, I noticed Rose Edouin, a creation by User:Victuallers with the indication "Previously deleted". Having been aware of multiple issues with some of their creations, I checked what this was about, and noticed that they deleted an apparently perfectly valid redirect before creating the "new" page under their own name. I raised this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Rose Edouin, and checked their logs to see if this happened regularly.

Sure enough, the last few weeks alone, they deleted existing redirects at Terri Libenson, Nell Gifford, Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol and Ena May Neill. A lot worse was their Undeletion of Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb, with the reason "This page was deleted without explanation. She is notable by AU experts. How this missed AfD baffles me. I strongly suspect this was a bit of stalking and they didnt even use their ownname." No idea how they succeeded in missing the rather clear explanation given by User:Justlettersandnumbers at the time of deletion: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/newcomb-caroline-elizabeth-2238/text2441, https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/1883". And sure enough, Victuallers succeeded in bringing a copyright violation back into the mainspace...

The combination of repeated WP:INVOLVED misuse of the tools (deleting valid page history to get the credit as page creator) and misuse of the tool to undelete a copyvio (with the lack of competence in not even finding the deletion reason), coupled with other recent issues like copyright violations, total disregard for proper attribution (which had to be explained nearly step-by-step before they got it), ... makes me doubt that they should continue to be an admin, but perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient? Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm a newish admin, and AFC is not my main cup of tea. Isn't it common practice to G6 a mainspace redirect—one that has only minor history—to make way for an AFC draft publication? That's what happened with Terri Libenson. Victuallers is not credited as the page creator, since another editor created the draft. I haven't looked into the others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

At least Rose Edouin was not an AFC accept/move. It was a copy-paste-edit fork from another article, slapped in place after deleting the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've struck out Libenson, as that is the only one not deleted to put his own creation. I don't know if this is or isn't standard AfC practice, but in any case it doesn't belong with the others in this report, thanks. Fram (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Newcomb isn't as clear a copyvio as the original deleter thought - the referenced article it copies from is licensed as CC BY 4.0. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I haven't yet read this discussion (to which I was pinged) in full. I think you may be partially right about the Newcomb article – the museumvictoria.com.au page carries no CC release and is clearly marked as copyright, so may (or may not) fall under their "otherwise noted" exception (wouldn't it be good if institutions could learn how to implement the CC releases they want to make?). But I see no justification for the copying of content from here, and am guessing that that was my principal reason for deleting the page on 28 November 2018. There was then, and still is, a substantial CCI still open for this user (any help much appreciated!). I've removed the residual copyvios from the ADB from Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb. We really need to engrave in stone that G12 deletions may not be restored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Rose Edouin had exactly one edit, creating a redirect. There is nothing else in the history. Anyone with the page mover right would've been able to move a draft on top of it, replacing it. It's pretty standard, and the history didn't need to be recovered. Could some admin check to see if the histories of the Gifford, Rivarol, and Neill articles are the same? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted Gifford, as that was a redirect that didn't need to be deleted. I left de Rivarol as it was, because the redirect was created by Victuallers themself. Neill, I'd like a second opinion on. Victuallers created it in 2015. After a couple of edits and a short talk page discussion, it was redirected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted the deleted edits on Neill. They are relevant to the article history, and the first edit was by Victuallers, so that wasn't an attempt to "steal credit" for article creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: What do you mean need to be deleted? Which need to be deleted, which don't, and which need to be undeleted? The whole point of creating this ability in the page mover right is a redirect isn't meaningful content that needs to be retained. If there's more than just a redirect, it should probably be retained, but not just a redirect. The only real function of undeleting a redirect is to ensure the wrong person gets notified if an article is, say, tagged for deletion, and to ensure that the person who might want to receive notifications about incoming links cannot get them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good point about notifications, Rhododendrites. I want to see how this discussion goes, but I may go ahead and re-delete those two edits, and I wouldn't considered it a WP:WHEEL case if somebody overrode me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it can yield better results in terms of more relevant notifications if redirects are deleted. It does feel a bit wrong if admins use deletion to give themselves creator credit, but {{db-move}} allows anyone to request that, so perhaps it shouldn't feel wrong. —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think you will find they are the same. This has been discussed before with the same conclusion as yours Rhododendrites. Victuallers (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the deletions. I've done similar myself in the past and done similar for non-admins who have asked me to. A redirect is not meaningful history. Undeleting something that was G12'd is poor; @Victuallers you should have discussed that with the deleting admin first and come to an agreement that it could be undeleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram it sounds like you've been working really hard on coaching this admin but haven't been able to build the positive working relationship you'd like to have or elicit editorial/behavioral changes you think are important. I'm sure we can collectively work out a win-win low-drama solution that moves us forward. What's the most critical issue that needs attention? How can we most help *you* today? jengod (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Jengod, it sounds like you're using an AI bot and haven't instructed it very well. What is your comment intended to accomplish? Bishonen | tålk 08:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I disagree about the desirability of deleting redirects. There's an attribution issue under the license, I believe? One could say that only matters when there have been substantial edits since creation, but that's a slippery slope: Ena May Neill received 2 small copyedits in addition to one by Victuallers himself before its redirection, and the redirect decision itself constitutes another part of the history that should be transparently documented; the discussion is on the talk page of the article and so was presumably also deleted? Also, it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion or other deletion proposal to notify all substantial contributors to the article. Notifying only the creator may be what you get it you let some automated process such as Twinkle do it for you (and that's already more than some nominators do), but in many instances there are others who contributed to the article and thus should be notified. This is a collaborative project; the norm should be that an article gets worked on by multiple editors, and we are held responsible for our edits, including our interactions with fellow contributors, and shouldn't fall back on automated processes as an excuse (or expect everyone to be monitoring their watchlists, another form of automation; those are often huge, plus the article may have been moved and the nomination thus be for a new title). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Even in that one article that had more than just the redirect itself -- an article which Victuallers created, but which Fram included in assuming bad faith that Victuallers was "misusing admin tools" to get the credit as page creator -- the only edits that weren't Victuallers did not contain anything copyrightable. Someone ran AWB; another person ran some other script which replaced the name of a template. There's nothing to attribute. I would be curious to hear why Victuallers deleted their own draft instead of just revising the old version, though, because it's odd not because it's insidious. it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion - It's not. Not even the creator is mandatory. Would be nice, but in practice it never happens beyond what's automated. When it does, it's just as likely as not to be labeled canvassing. I know, I know, but these are the times we live in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So deleting things that don't meet any of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria isn't a misuse of admin tools? Huh? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What was deleted without arguably meeting G6 or G7? —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I must be way out of step, then; I've always followed the instructions at AfD and informed all major contributors, and I was pretty horrified when an article of mine was speedy deleted on erroneous grounds (the nominator and the admin had only to look at my first edit summary) without any notification. No, it's not mandatory, but neither is more than minimal civility. It's seriously uncollaborative to ask for people's work to be deleted without the simple courtesy of letting them know (even creators of attack pages should get a templated notification), and automation is a poor excuse. Anyone who can't be bothered to even tell their colleagues that they have asked for their work to be deleted shouldn't be surprised if the level of acrimony and assumption of bad faith on the project continues to rise. (And, as I said, it's a slippery slope. What about the discussion that led to the redirect? What if a non-admin was examining one of those two people's gnoming patterns for some reason, including improving a tool?) It's also wasteful, but I know we aren't supposed to make any arguments based on server capacity. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've actually done a few similar undeletions recently (not of Victuallers's work) and I don't really see it as a matter of copyright but of history that's potentially interesting and should stay accessible to non-admins where possible. I think it's interesting to note that Terri Libenson was a redirect for over fourteen years before becoming an article and ditto with Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol (for nearly nine years), and have undeleted them accordingly. I don't think it's quite a deal-breaker and if consensus is that these should be re-deleted I could live with that. An example of a redirect I recently undeleted in similar circumstances was Signe Byrge Sørensen; I found it while checking deleted contributions of Patrick, inspired by this RFC about removal of text about minor edits because the relevant text was added by Patrick way back in 2003. (I went to check his deleted edits from around that time in case I was missing something, and found this edit to "Dating" that I undeleted from around that time). I've found all sorts of things by checking his and my deleted edits, but most of these sorts of deletions seem accidental and almost all deletions I've reviewed by looking at deleted contributions were completely fine. Graham87 (talk) 07:45/08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also re Terri Libenson, I've just discovered that the talk page was created by a bot in 2014, so in that case I feel more strongly that the corresponding article history should be undeleted to show *why* the bot created the talk page way before the article existed. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that having history accessible to non-admins is a laudable goal, but for trivial bits like redirect creation, notifications going to the right person instead of a bot is an equally acceptable goal. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that as a problem with the tools though (albeit a corner case that's hard to fix). People should take responsibility for every edit they make, either with or without a semi-automated tool, and should check to see whether what the tool is doing makes sense. (Speaking as someone who does all deletion nominations, etc. manually). I've just encountered so many weird cases with so many pages (some random examples) that I barely trust any semi-automated tool here. Graham87 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that redirect creation is "trivial", choosing to redirect a page to another is an editorial decision with equal significance to choosing to create an article at that title. If bots are delivering notifications to the wrong person then that is a problem with the bot not a reason to speedy delete pages that don't meet the speedy deletion criterion and/or declare other editors' work "trivial". We should always fix the bot to work with the encyclopaedia rather than attempting to "fix" the encyclopaedia to work with an incorrectly coded bot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There's not just bot and Twinkle notifications that go to the page creator, but also Echo notifications for "someone has linked to your page" that go to the earliest editor in the page history. I don't think there is a good way to fix those in software. But it would perhaps be better for everyone if the creation credit for KAIA (group), a redirect that was turned into an article, would be given to the person who converted the redirect to an article, not to me who just happened to create the redirect while gnoming. (As an aside, creating articles about people who become important politicians is a good way to be informed about what they do; my most successful article creation is Ursula von der Leyen and she gets a lot of links). —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Echo notifications should also be fixed, for exactly the same reasons (phab:T66090 is relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Re the KAIA situation, I agree because you created the redirect before the girl group was even founded, so I moved the redirect edit back to KAIA where it was originally. I've made similar history switches before, such as at "Bardcore". Re echo notifications not going to the page creator: I've experienced it myself but it's a minor inconvenience; for example I think the redirect edit before my article creation in this diff at Kevin Cullen (doctor) is integral to its history. Graham87 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Strictly speaking, the history of KAIA now a bit of a lie, but it makes more sense than before :) I usually leave such situations alone unless there is a good reason to mess with the histories. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Vis à vis User:Justlettersandnumbers: Copyright issues; but alerting Victuallers is 'silly [and] nagging'. Also [77]. No brainer. Pull his autopatrolled right. A shame that an editor as supposedly experienced as him needs to be treated this way, but you see, he puts quantity ahead of quality. See UP. Their understanding of INVOLVED was also questioned some time ago. SN54129 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User trying to defend their edits

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

---

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

This user is trying to defend their decision on places like the Teahouse and pages for undeletion to create a page on a non-notable person (said page was deleted Twice). --24.211.70.219 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that needs admin intervention at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know, I’m pretty sure that this is an undisclosed paid editor (although there is nothing to prove it). 24.211.70.219 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they are probably writing about themself. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

They (indirectly) confirmed it. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Close this discussion, the user has just declared a Conflict of interest (COI) on both their talk page and on their user page. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you say that this a worse notice board? ANI is well known for being the Happy Place on Wikipedia! ANIisTheHappyPlace (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

So whose sock are you? Secretlondon (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That was a mistake, I meant to say wrong noticeboard. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term disruption at movie articles by related IPs

• 142.115.176.126 (talk · contribs)
• 173.242.178.98 (talk · contribs)

Pretty clearly the same user from the same geographical area, with lots of overlap at Lightyear (film) and edit warring at Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I don't know if this is actionable, but responses like [78], [79], [80], [81] don't inspire confidence. When not contentious, today's edits at Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 raise WP:CIR concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--blocks placed. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    • At your service. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney/VQuakr

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

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

I recognize my conduct has not been sterling here and I genuinely don't think admin intervention is needed in this instance. But if someone is threatening to drag me here because I asked them to leave me alone, I may as well pre-emptively get my side out because I refuse to retract that request. The following are the bulk of VQuakr's edits (all but one that he has made since September 20). I obviously can't speak for what he wants out of taking this to ANI.

• 18:45 September 20 User's first edit since August 30 is to oppose my WP:RM of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and was their only edit that day. RM was closed as a well-attended no consensus that was closed early due to appearing on the main page. Me, still thinking that a separate article titled Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar was feasible, sought consensus to split content from Hardeep Singh Nijjar to it. I did so as a compromise due to the editors in the discussing asserting that a BLP of Hardeep Singh Nijjar could be expanded (and it has been). I acknowledge that that may have been WP:TOOSOON as the BLP still hadn't been expanded to the point that it is now.

• 18:33 September 21 User speedy closes my split proposal despite being WP:INVOLVED in the previous RM, with a strongly worded close message to drop the stick. Fine. I think this was an involved WP:BADNAC but no point challenging it. Move on. But apparently no.

• 18:37 September 21 User posts on my talk page, saying that my proposal was, "ill-advised" and to, "[p]lease listen to your fellow editors...." which seemed odd because the split was intended as a compromise after listening to fellow editors. The close message was sufficient; messaging me directly honestly at the time did feel like rubbing salt in the wound, but I assumed good faith, asked what specific comments he wanted me to listen to, asked him to sign his close and shared my concern that it was a BADNAC.

• [82] User's reply either misunderstands or dodges my question regarding listening to which editors and dismisses my concern due to BADNAC being an essay.

• 07:46 September 22 Dodges the question in order to lecture me for asking it. I initially respond before giving up on trying to get answer before he could reply to it again and reverting the whole discussion; I've already noticed at this point that his only edits this whole month have been either to oppose/speedy close my proposals and have this discussion with me. Obviously it's not close to enough to cry to ANI about it, but it feels enough like hounding that I want to be left alone. I had accepted that my chosen way to go about creating an article was met with no consensus. I made a second edit (which is the diff linked to) telling them, "as civilly as possible, to take a hike".

• I then got upset (weak, I know) when I noticed after that another editor (who I don't believe warrants dragging here or naming) created 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis, which was effectively the same article I had created previously at Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. This led me to nominate "Death of..." at RfD as moot since people are more likely to search for either just the name "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" or "Canada-India [fill in your favourite word here]" and "Death of..." works better as a CONCISE article title than as a redirect. I log off for about 3 hours to cool down.

• 15:33 September 22 VQuakr attends the RfD to question my nomination.

• During this time 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis is BLARed by another user, then reverted by the creator. I inform the creator of my previous attempt to create the article and ask them to not restore the article again. They reply saying that it has been mentioned on the main page., to which I reply saying that that was, "bullshit."

• 17:51 September 22 VQuakr enters this discussion, picking on my wording and accusing me of article OWNership, telling me to, "quit whinging". I reply to this with, "Quit following me and do not ever ping me again."

• 17:58 September 22 VQuakr considers that a personal attack, referencing me to WP:AOHA and saying they will drag me here if I don't strike it.

I have no intentions of striking a request to not follow me (especially a user whos apparently singular focus has been to either oppose my proposals or scold me for making them, much as I tried to AGF), and do not consider it any more of a personal attack then their "quit whinging." ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

1. Starting another formal discussion the same day one is closed isn't a great use of process. Practically speaking, it is much easier to manage contentious topics when they are contained to fewer articles, as article families have to be maintained to prevent POV forking. In this case, I think a bit of informal follow-up discussion would have been a better use of the talk page.
2. I didn't dodge any questions. Your question, What specific comments did you have in mind when sending me this? did not mention "other editors" and therein lay my confusion. I understood you to be asking which of your specific comments, and replied in that context. You clarified the question in the same series of edits that pinged me and asked me to take a hike, so you never got an answer. I have trouble finding where that's my fault, and there certainly was no malice on my part in the misunderstanding.
3. "Quit following me" is a clear WP:AOHA violation that needs to be self-reverted. All of our intersecting edits have been related to the same subject: the RFD was linked from the article talk page, and the 'crisis' article was linked from the RFD. If you have evidence that I've been chasing you around antagonizing you in unrelated areas, that is the sort of evidence that you should be presenting here. You don't get to throw out baseless claims of harassment just because someone disagrees with you more than once.
4. Yes, "quit whinging" was poor form on my part, and I apologize for that. I'll not strike it just now since we're active on ANI, but I will do so once the dust settles. To rephrase: once you hit "publish changes", edits belong to the project. Comments that focus on why "your" content was not retained are generally less likely to be helpful than ones that are content-oriented.
5. I'm hopeful that we can each redact/strike the comments referenced above and move on with our day. You are welcome to continue to use pings/my talk page when warranted, but if you are wanting me not to contact you in the future then it may be better that you do not. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your RM was ill-advised. Your split proposal was also ill-advised, especially so. It was completely out of touch with good editorial practices in the area of managing content across multiple pages, as you appeared to be oblivious to content forking concerns and unaware of summary style. An established editor would ideally not need to consult multiple other editors to be able to make the right calls on this fundamental level. By not deeply engaging with how bad of an idea (not bad in some dramatic sense, just absent of good) it was to start the bad RM and the bad proposed split in quick succession, which is especially clear now after the fact, but it was always clear, and putting so much emphasis on the procedure, i.e. who should close and who shouldn't, how essay abc matters, etc. you're leaving me with a poor impression of your sense of proportion and priority in this context. The RfD you subsequently started is terrible. If we have an article about someone, and that person's death is covered in the article, we can always have a "Death of ..." redirect, because redirects are cheap; that's not something that editors need to concern themselves with at all. All such processes have operating costs even when they are good ideas. VQuaker recognized that you're detracting from normal development of this article with your poorly conceived ideas about what editors need to focus on and what needs to be done. What needs to be done is further normal article work. Not pointless expensive formal processes with no chance of producing anything. You're not being followed, this is a major event, and VQuaker became interested in this article's development as someone who is probably interested in political events. VQuakr has not been editing on a daily basis. On this day, when he came to edit, he chose to do this. I assume he saw the tag and became concerned that there may be bad ideas circulating, and tried to do something about it. He was also courteous and you were not (edit: forgot about the "quit whinging" part during my writing this comment). Civilly asking someone to take a hike is not civil, and "Quit following me" was uncalled for. He also referenced relevant and useful PAGs in his replies to you. Including WP:AOHA.—Alalch E. 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Suspected repeat WP:COI at Grimes

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

---

I am concerned about repeated whitewashing on the Grimes wikipedia page - suspect PR acc involvement as any edits documenting inconsistencies in information she has released about herself are being repeatedly removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battenintokyo (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Battenintokyo, don't bother notifying me. Also, you're quite good at edit warring and making accusations and BLP violations, but you can't even sign your posts? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • you weren't involved in making the original rotation of problematic edits, just removing my complaints - which is what I thought the talk page was forBattenintokyo (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Your one complaint was a BLP violation, your other was silly. You seem to think there's some Grimes-supported conspiracy, and I'm part of it. Come on. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

      no, I think you're a random editor who isn't fully aware of the highly suspect, likely conflicts of interest among people editing her page at present Battenintokyo (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Battenintokyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Pbritti

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

---

User:Pbritti is exhibiting irrational, vindictive behaviour in the reverting of my edits to the detriment of article quality. Admittedly my behaviour is not ideal but bad editing really riles me. I gave edited mainly using 121.98.204.148 and 103.21.175.72.

I am not block evading as claimed by the editor. My IP addy changes since I edit at work and home and my home ISP changes my IP address. 103.21.175.81 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by 121.98.204.148. @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, is there an option to deal with this more permanently? ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are the problem. They are not advancing WP at all. 103.21.175.81 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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