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

User:Praxidicae

Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.

Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane ^talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.

Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm, I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.

I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.

I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.

Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Störm, I'm trying to understand what led to these edits: [1][2][3]. Could you explain what happened there? --Blablubbs|talk 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Blablubbs I am patient about this. They are continuously attacking me as they think I have damaged their Google Knowledge Panel profile. I think this IP should be blocked as they continuously removing alternate names from the article. Störm (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Störm, why do they think that? And could you link me to the knowledge panel thing? I couldn't immediately see it in the IP's contributions. --Blablubbs|talk 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Look at [4], [5], knowledge panel. They are vandalizing and doing nothing useful. Störm (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Störm, sorry, missed the knowledge panel thing somehow. Here's the sequence of events that I can see: It appears that someone is attempting to spam (the living) Ramzi Najjar: On 11 May, Seraphimblade deletes a G11 version of that article. On 18 May, someone recreates the spammy article and it gets draftified. On 26 May, you create an article about him in mainspace. The same day, Praxidicae brings up sourcing concerns on your talk page. You then G7 the page and immediately recreate it; this time, it's about a different Ramzi Najjar. That article gets AfD'd. A Lebanese IP, possibly the subject of the previous iteration, then shows up at the AfD to complain that you hijacked "their" page, referring to the page about the living Ramzi Najjar that had previously existed in mainspace. Am I parsing this correctly? --Blablubbs|talk 12:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; Icodense99 mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by scope creep and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Störm your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Störm: What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentional deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This thread was archived, but I think there are multiple issues still to be addressed. @Störm, Praxidicae, Dane, Celestina007, Blablubbs, and Girth Summit: (I think that's the main participants - apologies if I've missed anyone). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

@Lugnuts: Thanks for unarchiving. I agree that there are outstanding issues here. --Blablubbs|talk 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Störm and Girth Summit, I think störm is trying to attack praxidicae from his ip address see this [[6]].113.21.66.71 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the only edit that 223.223.140.176 has ever made, and reporting it here is the only edit that 113.21.66.71 has ever made. Don't know what's going on there, but it's weird. And the message on Prax's talk page is absolutely loathsome. jp×g 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Both IPs are Kolkata-based. The message they left doesn't represent what I stand for. Shame they do such cowardly acts. Störm (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

serious WP:HOUNDING by Ravensfire

For quick overview see this user interaction report and click on timeline for articles described below. (Stoopid Buddy Stoodios,List of massacres in Bihar,Rathore,Dabhi,Bhati,List of Gurjars)

Ravensfire is constantly following/WP: HOUNDING my edits reverting my edits on content disputes i have with other editors , with clear intention of harassing me and not letting me contribute by constantly reverting me on different articles i have interest in.

• Today I edited List of Gurjars , Raven who usually follows my edits too edited it today.

• I edited Stoopid Buddy Stoodios  here, Raven followed me here only to revert me.

• I edited Dabhi page they followed me here too only to revert me

• My edit on Rathore page [7] Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute  [8] [9]

• I edited List of massacres in Bihar  here  Raven who never edited this page before hounded me here too and reverted my edit for no apparent reason.

• I removed some content on Bhati page due to content dispute  and Ravensfire followed me here too only to revert me for no reason at all

• When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

This is very serious WP:HOUNDING,admins please take action.Ratnahastin^talk 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastin^talk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.

• Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [10]
• List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [11]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
• The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [12], [13], [14] - and plenty more.

He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.

• SPI against Heba Aisha [15], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
• SPI against Chariotrider555 [16] declined by CU due to lack of evidence

His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[17],

• WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [18] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.

This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Its funny that you're accusing me of not assuming good faith when you're constantly refering to my contributions as POV caste pushing and following my edits to revert my contributions.

My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.

Thats not first interaction the first interaction was here when i removed some content with well explained summary  it was reverted by you to build the Consensus although you never participate in the dispute on the talkpage.

I've removed that content on rathore because of the sources dont support the claims the sources were actually WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple non WP:RELEVANT citations I have explained reason for removing almost 3times on the talkpage of talk:Rathore the others who dispute it dont have any answers to issues raised by me, but you never took part in the dispute on the talkpage, my edits were based on wiki guidelines but still You've accused me of POV and caste pushing isn't that lack of WP:ASG on your side from the very first interaction i had with you? 

I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior.

Thanks for accepting that you follow my edits from the very first interaction i had with you. because you consider my edits as pov pushing without any evidence or participation in those content disputes.

The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives.

Please participate in the relevant discussions about content disputes on the talkpage of Talk:Rathore , i've explained my removal many times as WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple citations if you bother to verify the citations intead of reverting you would have not refered those sources on Rathore as facts. And stop these WP: ASPERSIONS please, and how is that  WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS of multiple citations WP:NPOV ? Since you have reverted me there the WP:BURDEN falls upon you to prove that those citations are not synthesis or violating any policies,but you haven't participated in those disputes, instead You're following my edits on multiple pages which, you yourself accepted, this proves that im being hounded, it appears that you have content disputes with my edits i request you instead of following my edits you participate in the content disputes please.Ratnahastin^talk 06:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and attack on established editors by Ratnahastin

This report is frivolous as were other against me and other editors like LukeEmily and Chariotrider555. The reviewing admins please note, Ratnahastin had been involved in attacking caste editors of wikipedia, ever since they have joined in order to do their POV edits on Rajput caste related pages. I have been observing that using loopholes in wiki policies, they have opened various cases against established editors in past. I was drawn into a sockpuppet investigation case, and editors, whom i mentioned above were drawn respectively in WP:UAA and WP:SPI on frivolous ground. Interestingly, all cases were closed as they lacked solid proof. But,the user was successful in making this place unfavorable for us. This report more probably is motivated by same intent. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned by Ravensfire above, all such reports were baseless, but were problematic enough to send us to inactivity for some period of time. Recent report against Chariotrider555 also resulted in sending him to inactivity. As those who face it, gets exhausted by it naturally. After doing this Ratnahastin tried to remove this content from Rajput, on the ground that it is repetition. Similar attempt were made to remove, what he considers "derogatory" from all Rajput caste related pages. On the talk page of Rajput, he often showed how non neutral point of view for Rajput caste through this comment. It is better to ban him from editing all Rajput related pages to stop wasting the forums for retaliatory actions against editors who donot share their view. This comment shows that they have some affiliation with Rajput caste and interestingly all the reports and dispute in which he is involved is related to Rajput related pages only. It is an issue of WP:COI, if you tell me to sum up my words explicitly. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [19].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of Ratnahastin that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't got a chance yet to look at their general pattern of sourcing and content addition. Please keep this thread open for at least a couple of days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.

Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India. This needs some review and attention from administrators. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I have just glanced through their last 10 days of content additions at the caste-related articles:

• Here they cited 4 unreliable Raj-era sources authored by an engineer, an army officer, etc., along with adding a massive unsourced or unreliably sourced list of rulers. They also misrepresented a modern source which mentions a legend in a footnote & questions its authenticity on multiple fronts. Practically, the whole massive edit is either unreliably sourced or misrepresentation of the sources.
• Here they again dumped the massive mess (discussed by me in the previous point) to a different article.
• Here they added a massive unsourced list of rulers from the 9th century onwards.
• Here they cited the 19th-century physician Thomas Alexander Wise for Historical Vedic religion-related detail of Ancient India.
• Here they cited the 19th-century physician Edward Balfour for Rajput-related claim of a 12th-century ruler.
• And as I have already mentioned, Jadaun_Rajput is solely created by them and is full of issues: unreliable 19th-century sources (e.g., ref no. 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, etc.); primary or unacceptable sources (e.g., ref no. 7, 9, 10 12, etc.); ref no. 4 is a self-published source of a non-scholar, etc. Not to mention that the ref. no. 18 is misrepresented again.

• I finally, when I found a seemingly OK-sourced edit ([20]), I cross-checked the content to check its accuracy, as I have access to that source. To my surprise, the text which isn't directly quoted by them is copy-pasted from the source after making cosmetic changes, i.e. the edit is a copyvio. Here's the comparison of their text with that of the source:

text comparison

a) Quote from the source[21]: Bhoja I first consolidated his position locally (including against the feudatories holding Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar), before turning his attention against the old ... enemies — the formidable Palas of Gauda. Their text: Mihira Bhoja first consolidated his territories locally by crushing the rebellious feudatories of Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar, before turning his attention against the old enemies :Palas and Rastrakutas. b) Quote from the source: Bhoja I then turned towards Central India, the Deccan and Gujarat. Stepping into a struggle for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... The raid was repulsed by Dhruva II. ... Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa ... Their text: Mihirbhoja then turned towards Malwa, Deccan and Gujarat. In Gujarat he Stepped into a war of succession for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... the raid was repulsed by Dhruva II.Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa. c) Quote from the source: The enmity between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas smouldered on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the king of the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas ... jointly attacked Pratihara territories sometime before AD 888. A major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas followed at Ujjayini. The Gurjara-Pratiharas were conclusively defeated. ... however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas, ... towards the end of his reign Bhoja I exterminated the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas. Their text: The rivalry between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas continued on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the Rastrakuta king of the Gujarat jointly attacked Pratihara empire in AD 888, with a major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas at Ujjayini. The Pratiharas were defeated. however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas,towards the end of reign of Bhoja,he had successfully exterminated the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty. d) Quote from the source: ... this may refer to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan ... Their text: This may be reference to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan. e) Quote from the source: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja I expanded his boundaries eastwards ... into ... Pala-held lands ... Their text: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja expanded his boundaries eastward into Pala-held territories. f) Quote from the source: ... that many of the kings of India obeyed the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, whose mighty army had 150,000 horses and 800 elephants. Their text: ...that most of the kings of India acknowledged the supremacy of the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, ... whose mighty army had 150,000 strong cavalry and 800 war elephants.

Then I checked their other edit ([22]) at that article. And it is also a copyvio:

text comparison

} a) Quote from the source: Bhoja’s coins at sites like Baghera (old Vyaghra; also Varahnagar), ... south-east of Ajmer. Bhoja’s ‘Adi-Varah’ type of coins remained prevalent in Rajasthan ... (Such coins are mentioned in the Kaman Inscription and in the thirteenth century text Dravya-Pariksha, by Thakkar Pheru, who served as mint-master etc. to Delhi’s Sultan Alauddin Khilji). Their text: The Bhoja’s coins ... at sites like Baghera (Vyaghra or Varahnagar), southeast of Ajmer. Bhoja’s ‘Adi-Varah’ coinage remained prevalent in Rajputana. ... Such coins are mentioned in the Kaman Inscription and in the thirteenth century text Dravya-Pariksha, by Thakkar Pheru, who served as mint-master and economic adviser to Alauddin Khilji.

Here yet again, they copy-pasted from the source after making minor changes:

text comparison

} a) Quote from the source: ... led by King Dharmapala, faced Nagabhata’s forces, which included contingents led by his Rajasthan feudatories, at Mudgagiri (modern Mungher/ Monghyr in Bihar). Nagabhata II was victorious. The Chatsu Inscription of Baladitya of AD 813 states that Shankaragana, a Guhila chief fighting on behalf of Nagabhata II, fulfilled his vow by ... Their text: ... led by King Dharmapala himself, faced Nagabhata’s forces, which included contingents led by his Rajputana feudatories, at Mungar Bihar Nagabhata emerged victorious. The Chatsu Inscription of Guhila feudatory Baladitya ( 813 AD) states that Shankaragana Guhila, who fought on the behalf of Vatsaraja fulfilled his vow by ...

Note that I cross-checked their content additions of only 4 edits, as the rest of the text is mostly unreliably sourced. My today's time got wasted in cross-checking copyvios. So I will check their few more edits tomorrow. But is clear that they are creating problems left, right and centre at the caste-related articles. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: As you can see, I haven't edited in 4 days because I am allowing scrutiny of my edits. I acknowledge the issues you have raised including lack of compliance with WP:RAJ,WP:RS and copyright violation. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is also a copyright violation. And likewise many other editors didn't noticed that i had paraphrased my additions thats why i have not received any such heads up or warnings on my talkpage yet.

Since I have joined only 2 months ago, I am still learning to use wikipedia and its enormous guidelines but I promise to do better on the pages, unless I am abiding by the guidelines that have been pointed above.RatnaHastin^talk 03:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

User(s) editing as unregistered (IP) after having their account blocked for harassment

• 2600:1004:B039:8C09:CDDF:95D0:2AB5:BDFE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:6080:2C05:DBD6:318C:7837:9B6:D354 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:6080:2C05:DBD6:811A:604C:6CB7:930C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Above IPs most likely evading a block of one or more of these accounts: JilleeLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Janjakim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or LilleeJeanCloutChasingFraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs: [23] [24] [25]

Context: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Harassed

Background: Recently there was a dispute at Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. regarding whether certain content should or should not be included in that article. Since it seemed that a number of users had registered accounts just to participate, I had them checked at SPI. The check revealed that they were different users, although still engaging in meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.

However, the users continued to harass the editor(s) on the opposite side of the dispute, and were blocked for that reason.

The new users seem to have learned that they can just edit unregistered and not be subject to an account block. They are most likely evading an account block by not logging in but continuing to harass.

A block is requested on each of these IPs for the harassment and likely block evasion. A range block may be needed since some of the IPs may be the same user.

✌️ The owner of all 🗸 04:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional context: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasDeku/Archive - the three accounts are unrelated from a technical point of view (although that might likely be MEAT, if their claims about off-wiki activities have even a remote basis in reality). This, however, is not acceptable (both as WP:ASPERSIONS and as, maybe technically, WP:OUTING), and combined with the previous harassment by Special:Contributions/Janjakim and Special:Contributions/JilleeLean, is rather obvious who they are. I'll go do some clean-up at the thread if it hasn't been archived yet, while I suggest an admin range-block the IPs for continued harassment and likely block evasion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's even more context: During a botched jewelry store robbery 25 years ago, a woman was shot and killed by her own husband while he was scuffling with one of the robbers and she was trying to intervene. Some relatives think the husband murdered his wife but the legal authorities concluded that it was accidental. The district attorney was corrupt and killed himself shortly afterwards. The two sides have been feuding ever since and the dispute has spilled over onto Wikipedia. I have blocked User: Cha20raca from editing Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., the current locus of the dispute, and I hope that will bring the dispute to an end, on Wikipedia at least. Hope springs eternal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No actually this is not a relative. This is a woman from twitter, who has nothing to do with my sister's murder. She has stalked my then 17 year old daughter for 3 years. We don't know how she tracks us, but anything we do on any platform she starts problems. This is an example. She has nothing to do with us, she doesn't know us, she is a troll that one day we woke up to and has ever since attempted to ruin my daughters name and reputation. This was not a fight spilled over. She literally came in and continued on purpose making edits. On two other cites she has vandalized and put up disgusting content. It has gone beyond a troll, she is a full on fatal attraction. On the other end, I do apologize, I read some more on your rules, and I meant nobody to get upset. I did not realize someone else has to write the wiki. It is a notable case, and one even to this day quite written about. I appreciate all your help and I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Cha20raca (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no connection between the shooting during the robbery and the corrpution charges/death of the district attorney; it's just a case that he processed in the course of his job, so the incident's inclusion in the article at all is inappropriate. The inclusion of the fact that some YouTuber was of a familial relation to someone involved in the incident is mind-bogglingly irrelevant. jp×g 02:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well the content dispute was already resolved, it's the harassment that I am requesting an admin to block the IPs for. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Feeling intimidated by User:Rocknrollmancer

I had a message left on my talk page left by User Rocknrollmancer and it was as quoted:

"Echoing some of the sentiment above, please read this and try to understand what is explained in the second paragraph. You crossed the line here (in the third sentence) - I saw this a few days ago but hung-back to see if anyone would pick you up on it. I had that Talk page on my watchlist but will take off. There is a piped-link already provided there (in the second paragraph) which in turn links to the same aspect as I quoted above. You've already been soft-warned for disruptive editing when you went after Joe Roe, and I see you also went after Nick Moyes, so just hope no admin sees this .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

Now I do admit I did feel personally attacked by users Joe Roe and Nick Moyes for their views and contributions on the Heavy Woollen District and discussion on using the song It's Grim Up North by KLF to reference places in the song mentioned. Although they have apologized for what they said and I did too when I knew I was in the wrong. I felt this was unnecessary to be put on my talk page by user @Rocknrollmancer:. User @PamD: already explained what I was doing wrong and I have done my best to improve my editing but I have never personally attacked anyone and I feel this is WP:Hounding me on Rocknrollmancer's behalf as stated. He has had my page on his watchlist expecting someone to pick me up on it but he has not responded to me when I responded to him. So I did remove it but remembered wanting to ask for Admin to look. I do agree I have been sort of Canvass on Wiki a few times I am not innocent and pretending to be. But I feel this was uncalled for and my other edits have helped to add content to wiki with new station pages on the Brecon and Merthyr Junction Railway, Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway and Borough of Middlesbrough.

I admit my disability does sometimes hinder my ability to be accurate in my editing but if I mess up. I always ask for help...I also want to add my reply to Rocknrollmancer below:

":@Rocknrollmancer: I have to be honest, I have no idea about the part you mention about Joe Roe and Nick Moyes...I did not go after any of them...I only mentioned to admin that I felt Joe Roe was misinterpreting my discussion on the Heavy Wollen District talk and assuming I was trying to make it my favour when that is far from the truth. Nick Moyes on the otherhand, spoke out of line in terms of accusing me of being on wiki for disruptiveness over me mentioning the KLF song, Grim up North in music tabs for each town and city mentioned in it. He fairplay to him admitted he got a little over annoyed and apologised and I said I accepted it. He and me have not had any issues. Joe Roe apologised as well and I accepted it. Rocknrollmancer as I echoed to PamD."

"I don't come on here to disrupt or anger offend troll anything. I want to help create articles for stations, boroughs and anything to do with north england. Wales and Midlands, South england every so often. I do make sometimes errors like I did with Talgarth station and I agreed to make sure to follow PamD advise on the rules. Also me and Crouch aren't in cahoots or trying to overrule things but Crouch is an experienced wikipedian and has like Eopsid, you and other more insight. I ask him as he has helped me and I ask for his input. My whole hopefully comment was in regards to the Borough of Middlesbrough had been nominated for deletion and we discussed it on the Wikigeography page to keep it. But a AfD went ahead because of no improvements."

"I am sorry but the article can't be more improved on if it passes wikiscope and other checks. I make articles with sources. They pass they stay, they merge or get deleted. I accept the concensus but the one for recent AfD was keep and one merge. So to finish your points you mention were resolved civilly and without disruption. Nick Moyes and Joe Roe are valid editors and have helped me when I asked them to. So we all want to improve Wiki so lets not pick faults with past things. I have accepted my faults and won't do them again. But I am far from a disruptive editor you and me have spoken a few times and agreed to disagreed civilly...its perks of facts, questions and opinions...regards RailwayJG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

Now I want to link my posts to both Joe Roe and Nick Moyes below too:

Joe Roe on the Heavy Wollen District Deletion Category Discussion:

"Where did i say it doesn't exist? You need to re-read the whole comment. I said and I quote "why do we need a category for Heavy Woollen when the towns and villages are already categorised. I seriously think Wikipedia is in danger of misleading readers into believing it's a district like a city or town when it is in fact not and that is a true fact. It is a coined local term. Not a government recognised district of towns or villages". It is a local term not a government one and so the categories aren't needed. It isn't being denied to be existent and I never said it doesn't so your misinformed on that one and two the term applies to a cloth making district. Its not a district like Wakefield or Selby district. That's my point a district is two things. Either a government recognised district like Selby Wakefield Hambleton etc or a part of a town or district like Meadowhall in Sheffield or Batley Carr in Kirklees. That's is a district term for UK use and this was for a cloth that was made with some towns. As I've said which you missed I'm not against the district article being kept but it shouldn't have categories too and it says North Kirklees area in it then actually mentioning Wakefield and Leeds so that is misinformed and the article up until now was lazily written and half dead links.

I think editors like you and a few others have gotten personal towards me by calling my comments vile condescending and someone with bad geography and history. I find those comments offensive but don't say nothing for fear of being banned for being personal towards editors so I bite my tongue and as someone who is disabled I feel vulnerable when people attack me for my edits articles and the challenges I bring up like I had with the whole Built up areas and Middlesbrough Borough authentications. They were challenged and still are being. So I don't know. I'm contributing but it seems I'm not needed to be even though I fix mistakes made or ask for reliability on things. Sorry I'm offensive and a terrible editor. As a Batley lad I'll take my cloth and leave this discussion...RailwayJG (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Got nothing to add (talk)? Exactly don't misinterpret my comments as your own assumption and use falseness because you clearly did."

"I don't have anything personal against you. I appreciate the work you are doing on the geography of Yorkshire and elsewhere. But please remember that when you propose that an article, category, etc. should be deleted, that is someone's work too. There's a fair expectation that you do some research before suggesting that another editor's contributions be undone. In the case of the AfD, that's looking for sources; for this CfD, it's familiarising yourself with our categorisation guidelines. At the AfD and elsewhere, many have people have pointed out to you that this is a notable concept (I quoted the part of your comment I was responding to before—"if it exists"—so apologies if I misunderstood that but I don't think it needs repeating). Here and elsewhere, many people have told you that our categories don't have to follow official classifications, and that there is no problem with parallel, overlapping categorisation schemes. When someone repeats the same points after being made aware that they're not accurate or relevant, it can be seen as disruptive behaviour. I understand that it's not pleasant to hear that, or generally have people opposing your nominations, but please understand that it is motivated by a good faith instinct to preserve other editor's work, not any malice directed at you personally. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)"

I did not respond but hold no grudge with Joe Roe or anything nor does he...

Nick Moyes on my talk page:

"Just following up on your post at the Teahouse. You were right - my amazement and sarcasm - having seen the edits your were asking about - did lead me to to go too far and I'd like to repeat my apology for coming across as rude and/or insulting to you. We all of us make bigger and smaller contributions here (I hadn't checked your other contributions, either). Some of our edits others inevitably regard as valuable - and 'thankworthy', whilst others are deemed quite unnecessary. My view on the pointlessness and irrelevancy of those particular edit still stands, but it was not fair of me to denigrate your contributions or how you spend your time. Sorry again, Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted...thank you...RailwayJG (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)"

So I do admit my wording can look a bit insulting but there was no personal attacks to these two editors...I just question reliability and ask for help. Something gets deleted, merged, kept or discussed. I always take part and have helped with all due respect to complete many of the missing Great Central Main Line, South Yorkshire Junction Railway and Swansea Vale Railway stations and halts. I also have helped make the articles for Aliens: Fireteam, Almighty: Kill Your Gods, Override Mech City Brawl, M.A.S.S Builder and Borough of Chesterfield to name a few more...I am not asking for recognition god no...just that I want to prove I am far from a troll or disruptive editor. I have made mistakes since being on here and crossed swords with some editors and developed a working editorship with some...I just want to ask Admin on here to have a look at Rocknrollmancer text above and tell me if this is hounding? RailwayJG (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is not WP:HOUNDING, but a civil-enough expression of opinion that you are welcome to engage with (or not) to whatever extent you wish, on your or their talk page. I suggest not trying to drama-monger this up. BTW, you are required to notify Rocknrollmancer as per the fat red message on top of the page; please do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elmidae: with all due respect, there was no just cause reason for them to put this on my page and accuse me of personal attacking two editors...surely Wikipedia does not allow Intimidating of editors? Also I have put it on their talk page the link to here. RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• As always, it's better if editors focus the discussions with other WPedians on specific issues, rather than on their general pattern of behavior. It helps both maintain good relations, and make progress in resolving problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And I have tried those steps but I still get accused of being disruptive and i guess cynical. It is hard as one of many with a disability to tell the difference between good and bad intentions...it felt intimidating in the term "hope no admin see this". It makes me feel one admin sees it and instant ban or block...I am sure you can see my pov? RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have been off-Wiki; no-one wants to see a text screed (as above) at AN/I, and I have not looked through in any detail, excepting the comments. I was trying to be helpful by notifying in a low-key way that blatant canvassing woud be regarded as poor editing conduct; any good wikipedian could make such an observation, in the hope that it would be beneficial and correctly received. I didn't anticipate a knee-jerk over-reaction. As I have written elsewhere recently, WP has become highly-structured and takes lengthy involvement to appreciate the various aspects. No-one expects a comprehensive knowledge after two years, so guidance was offered.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Rocknrollmancer while you may have been helpful and trying to advice you got to understand the way you wrote it out made it feel like an intimidation when you used phrases like "You've already been soft-warned for disruptive editing when you went after Joe Roe, and I see you also went after Nick Moyes, so just hope no admin sees this ". That sends to me a feeling of oh you carry on disagreeing and feeling misinterpreted and asking for clarity is nearly seen as WP:Abuse or WP:Bullying.

If you had said say "Your recent actions against Joe Roe and Nick Moyes appear to be disruptive. Just hope admin don't see it as abusive or bullying. Regards" then that would be more in my opinion formal. Then assuming I went after them which I did not do and spoke on each concensus or discussion to them. Nick Moyes apologized to me and I accepted it. Joe Roe apologized on the Heavy Woollen District page deletion but yes I did not reply but I did not go after him. You need to be careful when assuming I go after people when in fact I call them out for assuming I am here to disrupt. That is a bad way to look at it when it is not that at all. And as I said. @Crouch, Swale: is an experience wiki editor and has helped me with requests and ideas for articles. You last spoke to me over the photo for Mansfield Central railway station I uploaded and a few times on Middlesbrough and Borough of Middlesbrough. That whole sentiment of me saying hopefully was because it took a long while to remove the AfD and there was one last time. If an article gets put up for AfD more then once and a concensus was reached on another discussion. Then it makes zero sense to get rid of it when many say keep and few say delete merge or unsure.

I have contributed a lot to Wiki in the time I am here and if I am not perfect at referencing, structuring or knowledge, I ask for help I don't just create and leave it. Some editors do and some don't. So all I want to finish with saying is while you were offering guidance. You made it feel like a make sure you don't do this and you are disrupting. What did not help was me and Pam D were briefly at odds with my recent edits and sourcing and you put that up. It felt like WP:Hounding when two editors go at me and accuse me. It is very intimidating and even another editor pointed it out on a AfD page for one of the new articles I made. RailwayJG (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG It was only your attempt to elicit another editor to interfere with a due process that I wanted to alert you to; perhaps you failed to understand that both your approach and moreover choice of words would be frowned upon? I tried to keep it low-key, without using obvious link shortcuts. I waited, but no-one else tried to advise as I'd hoped for, so it was down to me to be cast as the villain of the piece for trying to do 'the right thing'. Please try to WP:AGF in that my motivations were to help to prevent any further indiscretion. You were given good advice above here not to make a drama; ironically, you have now boomeranged yourself by exposing it to several-to-many admins at this portal. Not that bad, though, because most would see the text-wall and dismiss it as tl;dr.

Lastly, I haven't contributed to Middlesbrough or Borough of Middlesbrough, neither have I interacted with you on those, as you assert above.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

While you might have had good intentions, if you felt I was "eliciting" another editor to interfere. Then I would not have been bothered but then you bring up the last bit which you have failed to clarify on about Joe Roe and Nick Moyes and me "Going after them". You made it appear to be a WP:Personal attack on me for requesting them to apologize or elaborate on their meaning. Also the text wall was to show your comment and my reply to you which you then ignored. So instead I took your section down and felt hounded as I was threatened to be banned from editing and you then going at me for both speaking to Crouch, Swale and bringing up admin and the two aforementioned editors. I felt hounded. Two editors threatening me with my edits and discussions. Making a possible scenario out of nothing. But without clogging this...it still doesn't change the last part of accusing me of WP:Bullying and WP:Abuse towards Joe and Nick. When I had not. I don't look for drama or exposing myself but you made me with that last paragraph on my page feel hounded. RailwayJG (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

PamD is not admin - no chance of a block on that basis of someone clearly trying to help with advice. No-one has asserted bullying or abuse; your attitude is to lash out at anyone who doesn't fit into your perception of what is normal for you. To elucidate further, you overstepped the mark by canvassing someone already involved "...if you would be able to or encourage the AfD to be removed". That exact suggestion is unacceptable; can you accept it was fair comment on my part, intended to prevent you repeating the situation in future? That was preceded by (at another discussion) ...and making this pointy nomination on his behalf was not wise. (read the edit summary). Buddying-up with the same editor; that's how it linked-in, historically.

The post above was supposed to be my last here; will you please now WP:DROPTHESTICK, or do you intend to keep it going? Reminiscent of —apart from the multiple deletion nominations of the article, he has tried to remove links to it from pages—at this point this is just classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Time to move on. from 12 April.

You now have an admin offering to de facto mentor you: "Happy to assist with guiding editors who are willing to learn in order to improve the project.". I hope this works out for you. I have now removed all of the Talk pages from my Watchlist; no doubt you will continue to change the lede at geographic localities - often controversially (as here, when you were trying to delete the linked article, mentioned in Joe Roe's 12 April Talk quote above) - which I shall try to ignore. I hope you are satisfied with this. Please do not ping me in future.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for your fair comment after reading it again and seeing likely what you intended to do. I disagree with you on the lash out part completely but that's my opinion and okay it's dropped. I won't ping you in future... This ain't Facebook and editors will still likely join in on discussions. Your talk page isn't on my watchlist anyway and my edits are not always controversial. But that's my opinion. Case closed no more beating a dead horse. Have a nice day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Editors aren't normally banned unless they have a history of serious problems on the project as opposed to small disagreements. Also individual editors can't generally impose a ban themselves, see WP:Ban authority but editors can be blocked by an individual admin but the user will normally have to be warned about the behavour first unless its obvious that the editor is editing in bad faith. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DrKay and Abbyjjjj96

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

---

Reporting DrKay (talk · contribs) for harassment. They commented on my talk page after I made it clear I didn't want them to and had even told them that I viewed them continuing to as harassment. Brief context is that we disagreed whether their comments on my talk page are misrepresentations (I say they are, they say they aren't). It was just going back and forth and became clear we weren't going to agree and I wanted to end the conversation, so I told them if they continued I would revert (at the end of my comment, diff). They replied (diff), I reverted (diff), they replied (diff), I reverted and made explicitly clear that I didn't want them to reply and viewed it as harassment by this point (diff), and they replied again (diff). (In that final diff, their reply ends with "If you do not wish me to respond here, do not ping me in edit summaries or make comments that require a response", 1) I was not pinging them (since when does reverting someone without removing their username (which is automatically generated) ping them? I have never received a ping alert when I've been reverted), and 2) "do not [...] make comments that require a response" speaks for itself.

I see this as harassment per WP:NOBAN. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I stopped posting to your talk page after you asked me not to. Since then, it's been you posting to my talk page[26][27] and pinging me to discussions at noticeboards.[28] As I said to you, if you want me to stop responding, don't ping me to discussions and make comments that require a response.[29] DrKay (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you replied again after I made it clear I didn't want you to and regarded it as harassment, as I have shown in the diffs above. The last diff I linked above was your last reply on my page. I reverted that (diff) and, because you were accusing me of pinging you, I responded at your talk page (as you linked, diff) instead of in the edit summary to explicitly ask you to leave me alone (to which you replied with more misrepresentations, just as you are doing here). When reporting a user here, you are required to notify them on their talk page, and I was under the impression you are supposed to link to them in your report. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was just about to say that this was a tempest in a teacup, and that I was confident DrKay wouldn't post to Abby's talk page anymore, but this response by DrKay is disingenuous. Abby, it's poor form to revert people with parting shots in the edit summaries like that. DrKay, it's poor form to post on someone's talk page when you know you're not welcome, whether or not they're taking parting shots at you, and misrepresenting it as "requiring a response". It's also misrepresentation to say you stopped posting to their talk page when they asked you to; "I'll revert you if you post to my talk page" is telling you not to post there. It's also misrepresentation to equate your posts with their posts to your talk page, one of which actually is required by policy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Struck. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, I'd say this is resolved; both users are highly unlikely to post to each others' talk pages now, or ping each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all that happens when you harass someone? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't DrKay an admin? I find that concerning given that they also repeatedly made misrepresentations. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Look, "harass" is a strong word for something that is (IMHO) 60% DrKay's fault and 40% yours. They posted 2-3 times to your talk page after you said not to in a rude way. That's not really harassment. They won't post there anymore. Are you looking to not have to deal with them on this issue anymore, or are you looking for them to get in trouble? And I'll pay you 43 quatloos not to use the word "misrepresentation" for the next 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN links to WP:HARASSMENT. I have never reported a user for harassment before, and am discouraged that the response is just 'okay, you won't do it anymore? All is well then!', especially given they repeatedly gaslit me with their denials on my talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, it says "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." The repeatedly part isn't there, but I would still push for an "I shouldn'ta done that" for the one post. I don't think most experienced users polled would feel that the automatic ping that happens when someone uses the Undo button is an invitation to further discussion, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to note: there is no "automatic ping" with the use of the undo button unless the editor has checked that box in the "Notifications" section of "Preferences". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't remember checking that box and just assumed it was the default. My bad. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm now not able to warn Abbyjjjj96 a second time about edit-warring on their talk page, I shall instead point out here that even though Abbyjjjj96 is no longer edit-warring at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, that doesn't mean that it is OK to do so at his sister's article: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, 5th revert. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was accidental. The first 2 reverts were for different users violating a guideline, and then the 3rd was because the second user claimed consensus had been reached on the talk page when a discussion was still taking place. With the 4th and 5th, a user had removed material citing original synthesis, and I reworded it thinking that resolved the issue. However, they reverted me saying it was still original synthesis, and so I replaced the sources with a better one. They sent me a thanks notification for that edit. It did not occur to me that those two edits were reverts; after checking over WP:3RR before replying here, I see that they count as partial reverts. WP:3RR says I should revert myself if I've mistakenly violated it, but that material was later removed by another user (diff). If I'm to receive a block or some other action is to be taken, I do not trust DrKay to be impartial given my recent encounters with them and it should be decided by another admin. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sixth revert, reverting [30]. DrKay (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Our initial dispute at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor involved DrKay reverting me and reincluding the middle name in the infobox's name parameter even though Template:Infobox person says not to and I had informed them of this (diff, diff). I explained it again on my talk page afterwards (diff, which they saw because they responded (diff)). Despite clearly now being aware of the style guideline, they added the middle name to that parameter at Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You call this disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing over time on many articles. All you've shown is a single edit, since corrected by another over 4 hours ago[31]. Perhaps you would care to provide a diff of me re-adding the middle name at Archie's article, or any other article in addition to Lili's, since our discussion? DrKay (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Amended 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree with what Floq says above. I also saw the reverts and PBlocked Abbyjjjj96 from the article for a couple days hoping it would provide some breathing room. Could the two of you just step away from the bickering, maybe even avoid each other for a while. There are plenty of other things to be accomplished out there, and I really hate IBans. — Ched (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected the sub-heading of this section to more accurately reflect the situation. I am happy to cease all contact, if such a stoppage is reciprocated. DrKay (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Making an edit which violates a guideline you were just repeatedly informed of is disruptive, even if it is occurring on a different article. I was going to step away after my last comment here but find that them repositioning this as two-way harassment misleading and offensive. It's appalling that an admin is being given a pass on this kind of behaviour. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate for a user who has been reported for harassment to change the sub-heading to two-way harassment, so I set it back. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 harassment

I am being harassed. I want it stopped. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Closure request

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

---

Would someone please close the discussion at Talk:Azov Battalion#POV pushing edit-a-thon by Azov members as WP:NOTAFORUM, before it gets completely out of hand? Not discussing the article, just acting as an attractor to get editors worked up while an RFC is in progress. Thanks. —Michael Z. 06:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done this myself. —Michael Z. 13:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

This is Sanjay from Bangkok

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

---

Dear Wiki Friends,

I am new to Wikipedia. Learning. I love Wikipedia and trying to make best use of it. I have done nothing wrong except not providing enough published references. Unfortunately your personalized comments about contributors is quiet aggressive. I am willing to talk further on this issue. Please let me know a convenient way to discuss this further.

Many thanks.

Sanjay Kumar Bangkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjayunv (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This refers to this incident, now archived, in which it was complained that Sanjayunv was repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles after being requested on their talk page not to. An admin placed another warning of the talk page in response to the complaint.[32]

I do not see anything particularly WP:BITEy about the initial warnings or the admin's warning, nor are they "aggressive". They merely point out that adding unsourced information to articles is not allowed, and that if the editor continues to add unsourced information they could be blocked for doing so.

I fail to see what there is to discuss. Sanjayunv should simply stop adding unsourced information to articles and familiarize themselves with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by AzərbaycanTürküAze

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

This user does nothing more than fill talk pages with ethno-nationalistic rants and pseudo theories. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Another one [43] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

London IPs targeting me with reversions

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

---

• 51.9.50.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For the past few weeks I have been the target of someone in Greater London who always reverts a handful of my edits, no matter what those edits were. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/51.9.50.0/21? Other involved IPs include 86.187.166.173, 86.187.224.172, 86.187.230.211, 86.187.224.68, 143.159.171.74 and 143.159.171.46.

The problem started on 12 May with 143.159.171.127 reverting Bbb23, JalenFolf and myself, quickly getting blocked by Ponyo.

The targeting is so obvious that Notfrompedro came to my talk page to ask what this person was on about. I can't identify the original conflict. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like a legitimate edit by the IP. Why were you edit warring to remove a comma that looks like it should be there?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. Looks like I got swept up in WP:BANREVERT actions after sockpuppet AllenKirk hit a few articles.[44] So that suggests sockpuppeteer Brettandelle is behind the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    Ah, I see. OK then.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked 51.9.50.128/25, which is the usual size of these ranges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that's a relief. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

D3FAULTX8 and non-notable BLPs (among other things)

D3FAULTX8 has created about 23 pages in mainspace, 17 of which (73.9%) have been deleted either via AFD or speedy deletion for a lack of notability and often promotional content. Currently, there are 3 remaining articles of which two are at AFD and a third is tagged for speedy deletion. I'm mulling nominating yet another (Jean Marie (DJ)) as well. It is evident to me that no amount of discussing or warnings to this user will get the point across - it's evident by the sheer number of deletions that they do not understand inclusion criteria, this was the talk page before it was blanked and their current talk page includes a number of discussions on this matter as well as deletion notices. They claim to "only write" about notable musicians here at this AFD and demonstrate a pretty spectacular ignorance of what sources say and what our policies say (specifically, xyz is signed to UMG, which is demonstrably untrue.) So I am bringing this here as I think the off and on disruption needs to come to an end, whether that's by a community imposed sanction such as a requirement to go through AFC, a block from namespace entirely (my preference, given they hijacked a redirect to promote a non-notable artist) or an outright block. And for clarity, I've included a list of the deletions below:

• G50X - deleted twice, speedied as a g11 and a7
• Viswabharathy Public School deleted via CSD 6 times
• JackEL (DJ) g4 of JackEL
• All1Equal a7d
• 22Bullets moved to draft and subsequently deleted as a copyvio
• FADNAudios a7d, vanity spam
• FADN Records, a7, twice
• Jonas Aden afd'd and g4d multiple times
• Flaremode (DJ) g4d after an afd under Flaremode and Flaremode (Italian duo)
• FADN Records (record label) afd
• EQRIC afd
• Alban Chela AFD
• FamPay AFD
• Luciano Barletta AFD
• EQRIC (musician), speedy g4 and g11
• Davemax AFD

BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

D3FAULTX8: Hi, I personally think you are professional Wikipedia admin and are aware of most or all rules, but as far I could understand, you are clearly not aware of most information externally of Wikipedia. On the page of 'MARMO', What I've mentioned is pretty accurate and researched. About the signing of artist in Universal Music Group, I could clearly understand that you are not aware of the contracts. I have attached 2 links as a proof that Marmo is working with Universal Music (co-produced an album). Can you clarify what really you meant by "Hijacking" a page? I have no idea what are you talking about and I just wrote a page normally as I usually do, but you just removed it and marked it as I'm hijacking a page. As per my opinions, I'm not requesting you to review pages which you're not aware about, or I'd suggest you should do a clear research about the article before you even mark it for deletion faster than other mods. At this moment, I'm not disagreeing with some of your decisions on the pages I wrote, but when you really mark it for deletion without any proper research, It's quite bad.

As you know, I currently only contribute to Wikipedia Music Categories, so I'm well aware of the WPMusicBio. On the recent article (MARMO), The artist meets 5+ criteria, but Prax says he is non-notable, which doesn't make any sense. I review before I write to check if the artist meets the criteria or not.

Prax has to assign or leave the page review to the particular mods who are aware of the article. At this case of mine, The pages I wrote (Guz Hardy & J Luke, MARMO), has been deleted without figuring about the artists' criteria deeply.

For other admins: I have been giving proofs about what I write to Prax on Talk Page, He leaves it without reviewing it properly. He clearly wants me to understand his policies but refuses to hear my citings and words. I've been waiting for his response on both of the page which got into AfD until now...FYI, Those pages were already approved by other moderators and also added fixes, categories etc. Later, Prax chooses to put it to deletion.

Most pages of mine which have been into AfD has been reviewed by 1 or 2 mods including Prax's opinion on the deletion.

+ Most pages I've wrote about is about famous brands or musicians..eg: Viswabharathy is a famous school in Neyyatinkara, JackEL is a vey famous artist in Las Vegas and is verified on instagram including he has awards, 22Bullets has released albums, lots of releases on major labels including Sony, Jonas Aden is a very famous artist in music industry, so is EQRIC. FamPay is another famous company in India. This is actually weird cuz my pages have been rejected for the reasons of non-notability. He doesn't review it properly as u can see from my reports.

Dear Mods & Admins, I'm requesting you to take a look at the MARMO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marmo_(musician)) and Guz Hardy & J Luke's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guz_Hardy_%26_J_Luke)....becuase Prax thinks those are fake information I've provided. If you guys need more proofs on what I write, you can put a notification on the talk pages too.

I'm also requesting Prax again to check it. D3FAULTX8 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the Guz Hardy AfD and article (and voted in it), and I have to agree with Praxidicae that it seems that you indeed included false information. Now, this false information can be found at some pages, so it is well posssible that you thought it to be correct and didn't have any malicious intentions; but it can't be verified at all from reliable sources (and the existence of some Billboard chart should be easy to verify, even if it may be harder to check individual entries on it). It looks to me, based on the above, that having you banned from creating more articles would be the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support mainspace topic ban it is clear from the editor's creations and comments above that they do not sufficiently understand music notability to be creating articles directly. While no one wants more in the AFC queue, that's the only solution possible here. Star Mississippi 17:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40

• 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As far as I understand, IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is still topic banned from Race & Intelligence for pushing a conspiracy theory related to the topic area (per [45]). Their continued pushing of this conspiracy theory was discussed here last October, though apparently no additional action was taken: [46].

This IP user has now reappeared once again, pushing the same conspiracy theory over at a user talk page, with the apparent approval of other like-minded editors. Some of the chatter on that talk page is clearly inappropriate (aspersions, etc.), but the only actionable item I'm going to suggest at this point is a longer-term range block for the IP to enforce the t-ban. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request that an admin action this request, and broadly. The R&I subject area was a terrible quagmire until an ArbCom case cleaned it up somewhat, but if sanctions are not enforced, it's likely to become one again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a large range with a large number of edits. Previous blocks were partial page blocks - the Race & Intelligence page and an Arbcom page. What is being proposed here, and can we have a few more diffs? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The relevant background diffs are in the two discussions I linked above, here and here, and then the most recent t-ban violation is here. With regard to the best way to handle the situation, I will defer to others, though I certainly agree with what Beyond My Ken has stated above. It seems to me that there should be some way to enforce a well-earned topic ban. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I can only give you my observations the way I see it. There's some diffs from the previous year, and thousands of edits from the range since (presumably many different people, but obvious collateral), and who knows how many legitimate account creations. This doesn't look like a productive full block situation to me. Maybe a partial block against the one user's talk page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory being discussed at that talk page is ridiculous beyond belief: the earliest reference I can recall off the top of my head (and I guarantee I could find earlier ones if I looked into it) to there being an establishment of scientific racism within psychometry was in a letter written by Richard Lewontin in 1970. Somehow, I don't think he was inspired by some trolling at RationaWiki in 2018. I know for a fact that in the late 90's, people were discussing it in the context of The Bell Curve and it's failings.

Honestly, I truly believe anyone at that talk page involved in that discussion could benefit from a TBAN, because the simple fact that they're taking those claims seriously evinces a grave lack of competence to work in this subject. In at least one case, this would be the re-imposition of such a ban. As for the IP, TonyBallioni said it in the discussion in which the IP's topic ban was imposed: range blocks on these IPs usually have very low collateral damage. I say go for it, and if anyone else in that range wants to edit, they can create an account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that -- as opposed to range full blocks -- range topic bans, in the form of partial blocks, have much less chance of collateral damage and would seem to be a good way to handle the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not what I had in mind, but yes, page blocks from the talk pages of the involved editors, as well as the article in question would likely get the job done. Honestly, I'm still unfamiliar with the concept of partial blocks. It seems alien and strange and I want to squint at it and tell it to pull up its pants and get a real job, then go mutter about kids not knowing what respect is to myself while I sit on my porch in a rocking chair and whittle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting in the hopes this edit will show up on an admin's watchlist. There's a literal cabal of editors plotting ways to get around the community consensus and inventing excuses to engage in POV pushing, led by an IP editor who's been topic-banned from this subject. I'd like to repeat that I wholeheartedly encourage an admin to topic-ban the whole group of them, to avoid the future disruptions that this sort of behavior makes clear is inevitable, if nothing is done about it. If evidence of a long- term pattern of disruption is necessary, I will gather and provide it upon request. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:103.134.130.144 refusing to adhere to guidelines.

GoodDay,
just wanted to bring this to the attention of Admins.
I am not sure if this belongs here or on WP:AN3
WP:ANI notification has been done on User_talk:103.134.130.144

IP USER User:103.134.130.144 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) first edited the page Shinde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by adding uncited additions[1] and [2] and removing wikilink to the page Dalit, which looked pretty prejudicial to me.
I then re added the wikilink for Dalit and also added Template:Citation_needed to the additions in 1,2 above - [3]. Following this User:103.134.130.144 again removed the aforementioned wikilink and used an old citation (which was used elsewhere on the Shinde page in lieu of the Template:Citation needed) [4].
However If you check the citation used - it points to a publication on google, which has a search function and by searching for the terms in question (Patil,deshmukh) [1] - it turns up blank, these terms are nowhere mentioned in the cited publications. So I reverted these changes, with an explanation[5]. I also left him a message on his talk page User_talk:103.134.130.144 and on Talk:Shinde.
Following this USER:103.134.130.144 once again repeated the same edits as [4] ->here [6]. User:103.134.130.144 also used a wikipedia article as reference to remove another Template:Citation needed in contravention to WP:CIRC. This again I reverted with advice that Wikipedia articles should not be used as a reference especially articles which themselves are tagged as in need of references[7], simultaneously leaving a message on User_talk:103.134.130.144.
User:103.134.130.144 has again gone ahead and removed the Template:Citation_needed and added citations to Wikipedia articles[8] which do not provide references to the additions initially made by said USER.

I have already done 3 reverts on the page and do not wish to continue anymore, lest I be penalized. I leave the rest to the knowledge and decision of the admins. STC1 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've slightly improved the page, and taking a look at the history, I think indef SP is likely a decent step considering how this list seems to be a persistent disruption magnet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• The page has now been semi-protected by Chetsford for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

IP user edit warring, aspersions, refusing to discuss, reinstating problematic material at Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis

Three editors, User:Þjarkur, User:Onel5969, and myself so far have concluded that the newly-created page Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis is better replaced by a redirect to the more substantial and better-sourced parent article Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. The newer smaller article (which seems to be a possible WP:POVFORK) consists of a source already in the parent article, in addition to several problematic/problematically used sources: a controversial source misleadingly used, a non-WP:RS source also used misleadingly, and a source whose inclusion/use is WP:OR (since it does not at all mention the subject of Khazars).

We each have replaced the article with a redirect to the parent article. But after each edit by the other editors, an IP user (2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:EC43:F0CC:270D:C902 [[47]]) calls said edit vandalism, threatens to file a vandalism report, and restores the disputed material. After one of my edits, the IP stated that the article contained information not in the parent article (though some of my previous edits had explained why most of those sources were problematic). After the IP reverted my edit, I started a topic on the Talk page but the IP did not engage there and instead has kept edit warring (against User:Onel5969 whom the IP continued to ignore and threaten) without properly explaining their reasons for restoring the contested material.

Here ([[48]] is the topic on the article's Talk page where I tried to explain the problems with the material in the page, explaining various Wikipedia policies (in case the IP user was not aware of them). It may be significant that, some of the material the IP favors, as I explain there in the Talk page, is identical to material added by the blocked User:Ultrabomb and periodically re-added by their many socks over time.

Recently, after Onel5969 asked the IP to use the Talkpage and left a link explaining WP:BRD. The IP simply reverted Onel5969 and reported them for vandalism (ignoring their link, their and my edit summaries, and refusing to engage).

The IP continues to edit war and refuse to engage/explain their edits despite attempts by myself User:Onel5969 to get them to stop edit warring and engage in Talk.

Here is the article's edit history for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Genetic_Studies_and_the_Khazar_Hypothesis

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked the IP-range for 48 hours for edit warring. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: Hello. And thank you. But I am afraid (after being reverted by three or four users) the IP has still continued edit warring (they just again re-added the disputed material), has completely ignored all edit summaries and Talk page discussions, and is again threatening to report anyone who reverts them for "vandalism".

See the page's history here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Genetic_Studies_and_the_Khazar_Hypothesis

It seems more may need to be done. Skllagyook (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Skllagyook, the page has been semi-protected and the IP range blocked for 3 months by other admins. No further action is needed. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile Yes. I see that now. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Legal threat by 106.203.145.225

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

---

Diff. I think this is self-explanatory. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, though most likely this is a dynamic IP which would never come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello. I want to know where i can declare proxies and VPN.

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

---

I found some proxies vpn ip who do vandalism. user:193.228.99.5 193.228.99.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/193.228.99.5

user:213.162.73.160 213.162.73.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/213.162.73.160

user:213.162.80.225 213.162.80.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/213.162.80.225

Where can i declare these proxies?. Thank you. --112.172.112.143 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated CSD tag deletion, meatpuppetry, et al.

• Rza835 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.244.124.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.172.93.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So User:Rza835 has created the pages Emil Shahin and Emil Şahin like 5 times at this point. There was an AfD regarding the first (here's the link). The article has since been nominated and deleted for CSD under G4 since it's essentially exact same copies. Where the issue comes in, however, is the after the CSD nomination occurs. A group of different IP ranges, those being 77.244.124.118 and 213.172.93.77, have come out of the woodwork when the articles are CSD nom'd and start delete the CSD tag. Most recently, this happened about 40 minutes before the writing of this ANI, but as User:DoubleGrazing noted in the original AfD from over 2 weeks ago, the tag deletion happened then too.

It's to my understanding that the IPs and Rza are different people. I'm judging this based off of the constant usage of the words us and we and our ([49] [50] [51]). Regardless this is a blatant meatpuppetry if that is the case.

And as Rza noted on my talk page ([52]), "our composer asked us to create an article for him and he is sent to be deleted every time", which also means this has a good chance to be undisclosed paid editing too.

This cabal has also created the same exact article on the same subject in both the Azerbaijani ([53]) and Russian ([54]) Wikipedias.

(Additionally pinging User:twotwofourtysix since they've posted on his talk page as well.)

Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

213.172.93.77} and Rza835 I forget to log in when I log in from different browsers. Please help to create my Emil Shahin article. We created it with a wrong title before. As Emil Şahin, we have now edited it so that it is titled Emil Shahin. help me now I'm not a bot or spam I just want my article to be published on wikipedia. If you can help me, we won't have any problems again.Rza835 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

They declared that the information on the article was "provided by the person himself." [55] Probably some conflict of interest going on. Also, while the articles may heve changed since the AfD, it seems to me that most of the references just point to external sites of galleries and likely don't verify the information or indicate notability of the subject. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Then could you please tell me what to do? Because the informations (references) are all true and came from reliable sources. Rza835 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm unable to speak to the other incarnations of this article, but the one I AfD'd 2+ weeks ago was virtually unreferenced, as mentioned in the nom.

I also can't help noting, WP:AGF etc. notwithstanding, that forgetting to log in when deleting speedy tags seems fortunate, if that's what's being offered as the explanation.

Finally, Rza835's contributions on Commons, all uploaded as 'own work', do strongly suggest COI (or else copyvio — something I queried on their talk page, but never received a response). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing The pictures are mine, what can I do for you to confirm it? help me with this. You're all making comments like I've committed a major crime instead of helpingRza835 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, what you could have done was respond when I asked about this earlier. But now that you have, you've also confirmed that you have a conflict of interest, because to have copyright of such photos clearly means you have a relationship of some sort with the article subject. A notice was posted by Deb on your talk page on 19 May asking you to declare and/or otherwise deal with this, but I'm not aware that you have? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing ok then help us to deal with our problems and let's deal with it. There's no point in raising small problems. We were new to Wikipedia, these problems happened, now we are working to fix it.Rza835 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Rza835 - Who is the "we" you keep talking about? Are you aware that a Wikipedia ID cannot be owned by a group or organisation? Deb (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DebWhen I say we, I keep myself on hand. I am not an Englishman, so there may be mistakes in my speech and writing.Rza835 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the latest instance of the article pursuant to G4, and have left a note at User talk:Rza835. UninvitedCompany 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at my talkpage

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

---

Here [56], from Salim567. Asking an admin to do what an admin should do. I put this at AIV earlier today, but it's been removed by a bot for being stale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've indef'd them for that. There's no call for that at all and even not a legal threat, that's a direct threat to you itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Unsourced OR additions by IP user

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

This IP user is constantly adding their own OR measurements from Google Earth, even changing data if it was supported by RS. Despite warnings on the talk page and clear instructions in the edit summary, this IP user just doesn't respond or alter their editing practices. A ban seems in order. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not an expert on this, obvs, but: could it be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? It seems the user in question is editing mainly/only on mobile (aka 'cellphone' to our American friends, I believe). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

They heard me: after I gave this warning on June 2 to add references, they started adding references to Google Earth, such as this edit. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting page protection for Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Recently the result of an AN discussion was to semi-protect the Talk:COVID-19 misinformation talk page, in order to minimize the drain on editor resources handling talk page disruptions from editors who were prevented from editing the article directly by existing page protections. The primary concern was increased disruption around COVID origins.

The Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page has also, in roughly the last week, also gotten significantly more IP-based unproductive edits on the topic, possibly a result of those edits having moved from the misinformation talk page to the investigations talk page. Particularly egregious examples of the disruption include low quality accusations, or requests/criticisms suggesting the article was not carefully read by the user. An additional sampling of IP edits from the last week:

• Content replacement vandalism [57]
• Unhelpful theorizing [58]
• An aggressive presumption of bad faith/shilling [59]
• Anonymous IP with "all my PhD friends" WP:OR [60]
• An existing ANI and ArbCom discussion regarding a protracted debate involving an IP editor (who has preferred not to use a previous account or create a new one, making conversation and identifying which IPv6 user is being replied to in a threaded conversation difficult)

Naturally, all of this is disruptive, and a drain on editor time to address. Would protection of this talk page fall under existing WP:GS/COVID19 towards focusing discussions on improving the article and reducing disruption? Particularly in the context of having precedent, and I'd suggest evidence that the protection mostly fulfilled the intended goal. The previous AN requested extended protect, but I tend to agree with the closing comment's justification for semi-protect solving most of the issue and leaving the option for escalation later.

Ping previous contributing admins @El C and ToBeFree: Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Page protection would be a huge help - the situation is out of control [61]. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Original request: User_talk:El_C#semi-protect_Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19? So, to be more forthright: why would I want to be the one to protect that page? Obviously, it opens me to further undue attacks, which Committee members, clerks and other participants haven't really acknowledged (save for Drmies, though in fairness, there, it's mutual). Background: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_El_C. Anyway... El_C 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, my intention is not to suggest that you are uniquely suited for the task, only to receive feedback like this. And this give me the impression that, as has been argued elsewhere (including the ArbCom case above and past ANI discussions), GS aren't getting enforced at a level to be effective. Not necessarily because individual admins are doing anything wrong, but because the effort and backlash are too high to result in action, and there's not enough motivation to solve those root issues to produce effective policing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a GS as active as WP:GS/COVID19. Not to broken-record-it-up, but compared with WP:ACDS, WP:GS is pretty much disadvantaged from the outset. It's basically ACDS-light — because GS has WP:AN/WP:ANI, while DS also has those plus WP:AE/WP:ARCA (more often than not, superior forums). El_C 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not in parallel to the ArbCom case. It is too early to have this discussion. When the case request has been answered (and the case, if accepted, has been resolved), please have a look at the situation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I see today that the current proposal includes a change in the method of sanctions, so I agree that a delay would make sense. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• As far as policy goes, I'd think it's covered under the GS which allows admins to take measures they deem appropriate. Although talk page protection is still very uncommon, and thus clear consensus at ANI is better I think. But given the recent discussion at ANI that found a consensus in favour of EC/semi-protection on another page in the topic but on this exact issue, the community seems to have already made its position clear on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. IPs are offering some of the most diverse points of view on the page right now. Yes, there is some degree of chaff, but locking out IPs is really shooting the messenger. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@183.83.147.38: With respect, if a user is making valuable and productive contributions, they won't be hampered by creating an account. I'd suggest it's much easier to carry out a conversation and come to an agreement when users aren't an ever-changing string of numbers, particularly in protracted discussion with multiple IP users which can be mistaken for one another. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Since we're discussing the topic of the benefits of IP editors, I'd like to point out that the above IP user has received a temporary ban on editing for harassment. While this obviously shouldn't be used to imply all IP editors are unproductive, I think it's worthwhile context both for how to interpret above user's comments, and for the depth of the issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "harassment"? The reason for my temporary block was a joke I had cracked on a user's page; I had no idea that it somehow constituted banworthy "harassment" on this site. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The joke in question was diff: "I write this in admiration of your valiant efforts to please your Chinese paymasters. Too bad it'll all come to naught in a while..." As a hint to editors monitoring this topic, I will issue long blocks for any other disruption that is brought to my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• And yet another, non-productive "newcomer", Special:Contributions/Intelligible.Machine, who like the others seems intent on harassing me since their very first comment already contains a personal attack. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly support locking talkpage to non-registered users. First we made sure to kick off wikipedia all those that had unappealing opinions. Now we must make sure that there is totally no wp:Cabal that maintains the status quo at any price. This must be done even if it goes against the shifting mainstream public consensus shown by peer-reviewed articles scientific articles and even heavily left-leaning mainstream news outlets. We cabals cannot let the opinions of those easily swayed journalists count, especially since these weak-willed journalists did a 180 in less than a week. We must stand strong behind the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We need to let wikiactivists like this do their job of removing any mention of reliable sources that might have the potential to unsubstantiate the status quo without leaving the option of anonymous IP calling out their heavy biased pruning. Please give awards to such glorious wikipedians that defend the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have posted at User talk:205.175.106.86 to warn them that any further poking of other editors or poorly sourced commentary at article talk will result in an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Two users engaged in a slow edit war

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

---

Lukewon (talk · contribs) and Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk · contribs) have been engaged in a slow edit war since March at Miss_Universe_2017. While neither has hit the 3rr, there have been 39 edits and reversions by these two since March- arguing over who won most photogenic- and if a source from Indonesia is reliable. Nguyenquochieu calls Lukewon's edits vandalism, [[62]] repeatedly [[63]] [[64]] while Lukewon inserts a directive to not remove their change [[65]] repeatedly ..... [[66]] [[67]] and then Lukewon decides Nguyenquochieu is biased [[68]] and Lukewon accuses Nguyenquochieu of being a sock- but never bothers to report them as such [[69]]. Other users tried to engage them on the talk page to end this to no avail. [[70]]. The issue was then brought to the DRN where I closed it since no discussion had taken place between the involved editors on the talk page- only in menacing edit summaries. [[71]]. I advised both there and on the miss Universe talk page that they needed to quit edit warring and start working towards a compromise. Another DRN Volunteer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) did the same The result was another post from Lukewon making more accusations towards Nguyenquochieu [[72]]. In all of this Nguyenquochieu has continued editing other pages but has refused to engage with other editors at all. Their editing history shows very niche editing and a ton of reverting with questionable WP:AGF [[73]]. I am proposing either both editors step in, appologize, and start working together- or admins impose a break from editing anything Miss Universe related- broadly construed (maybe 30 days?). Nightenbelle (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Just noting this subject is under general sanctions: WP:GS/PAGEANT - Bri.public (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really in the way other subjects are. There is no {{GS/alert}} for this area either. The article is already extended-confirmed protected in response to sockpuppetry, and this protection already goes beyond the general sanction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the report.

• Special:Diff/1027731971 should prevent further violations of WP:ONUS.
• Special:Diff/1027733652 should prevent further personal attacks on article talk pages.
• Special:Diff/1027733257 will prevent further disruptive editing from Nguyenquochieu2107, who has disruptively ignored community concerns after many warnings.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Issue with an account that is possibly a factory of propaganda editor(s)

Moved to ANI from AN.

The account is [User:Jingiby]. If you see the account edit history you will see that he (they) edit for 10 or more hours non stop each day. Last 24 hours alone, they made 40 edits. Going on like this, each day, for years. Something borderline impossible for a single human to do. So the suspect is they are a collective account, possibly paid for this. Second they have an agenda. It is a hitman account aimed exclusively at Macedonia related pages. With occasional article edits about nationalist issues with other Bulgarian neighbours. Editing them towards a Bulgarian propaganda worldview. And this is in plain sight. Even from their main page the Bulgarian nationalist narrative is clear (photo of Bulgarian warriors). We have had issues with this account for years. He/they were already banned before. You can read at comments from Macedonian reddit about this from today. Everyone finds this account suspiscious and problematic. https://www.reddit.com/r/mkd/comments/nvs8t7/англиски_артикли_на_википедија_за_македонија/ This account is well known to all Macedonian wikipedia editors and even on the Macedonian language wikipedia page. Most od the mods there know about this issue, you can ask for confirmation. It is a constant plague. We are against an organised and paid structure, so it is exausting for "hobby" editors to keep track and re-do the damage, only for them to re-do it some time down the line.

250k euros each year were exposed that the Bulgarian Gov, and under supervision of the ultranationalist Karakachanov, were allocated for "promotion of Bulgarian propaganda, especially in relation to Macedonia" https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/30967858.html https://english.republika.mk/news/macedonia/karakachanovs-institute-uses-government-money-to-expose-the-bulgarian-character-of-macedonia/ And though this does not count as evidence, it is very possible and likely that part of this money goes to some structured team of editors under this account. As someone suggested in the article, many of the sources linked by them quote some obscure google drive scanned files, that are not commonly available and accessible on the internet, and are by the same research institute "MNI" https://www.reddit.com/r/mkd/comments/nvs8t7/англиски_артикли_на_википедија_за_македонија/h15rhp1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Can can someone help us? Can something be done about this? thank you FrankSupra (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @FrankSupra: you've failed to notify the subject on their talk page as indicated in the box at the top in bold. I've notified them for you Nosebagbear (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• • thank you.

I want to add to the issue that most if not all the main Macedonia-related articles are dominated by Jingby edits(!) You see this name all ove the place.

History of edits on North Macedonia, Macedonian language, Macedonians (ethnic_group), History of North Macedonia, Macedonian nationalism, Macedonian alphabet, Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, Macedonians in Albania.. up to bogus propaganda articles like this Historiography in North Macedonia that the account created and 99% od the contributes is only theirs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the extent of the edits of this single account. This in itself is a red flag, if one account manages to tailor edit all the main pages of an entire country. Foreigner to the country none the least. FrankSupra (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe FrankSupra's comments constitute an over-the-top personal attack, which is unsupported by any on-wiki evidence (I really don't care what Reddit users think about much of anything, let alone Wikipedia activity) that is not wholly speculative, e.g., Jingiby makes too many edits to be just one person. There are many editors who make far more edits than Jingiby. I recommend an indefinite block of FrankSupra.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestion. Ban me if I did something bannable. I am not using personal attacks. I am aware I have no real hard evidence. My request is for the Admins to look into this matter. Perhaps they have some tools that would provide evidence. Like check if there are multiple IP's this account logs from simultaneously. Or other ways to check and verify this. Or if there are some policies on this kind of "focused" editors. FrankSupra (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    • To accuse an editor of something without evidence is a personal attack. It is disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise. Nor will Wikipedia investigate a user based on unsupported allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @FrankSupra: even if you don't have hard evidence for proving socking, your primary complaint is that they are a "propaganda editor" and "hitman account". What are the edits that show this? If they are substantiated that would suffice for a block, and should be provable through no more than on-wiki evidence, but must be supplied or would count indeed count as personal attacks Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Nosebagbear: I can link every single edit of this account and point that it is from an undoubtedly pro-bulgarian narrative. That would account as "propaganda". The fact alone that is a monothematic Macedonia obsessed account makes it a "hitman". On top of that there is the 10 hour daily edits, 24/7/365. If this things are not problematic, or are issues that only I am seeing, and are permitted by Wikipedia guidelines, I apologise. That was the main point, for me to ask if there are some issues here worth looking into. I cannot prove socking, Admins can check with IP and other tools. Thank you FrankSupra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

      Bbb23, Sorry to pester you again so soon after my comment on your talk page, but I took a very quick look at Special:Contributions/FrankSupra and I wholeheartedly concur with a WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW based indef, for whatever my opinion is worth. Even if they do prove their complaints, getting this account blocked is their sole purpose here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

      • @Bbb23: You have used personal attacks against me. No need to. All I am saying is look into this account. If there is something problematic there or not. Me not editing much on wikipedia is not a crime. Last edit there were also issues with user Jungby. He posted fake news articles as evidence on Macedonia related pages (as usual). I asked an admin support and his edits were reverted. FrankSupra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• While I empathize with a sense of frustration one might feel if they believe state funds are being appropriated to retain undisclosed paid editors to push a specific worldview, per Bbb23's point, the mere existence of such an effort is not proof that any specific editor is party to it. We should self-police our accusations against other editors in the absence of clear evidence. That someone doesn't have much in the way of hobbies or interests outside WP is not, itself, evidence of paid editing. If it were, we'd have to block all the WP:TROP regulars. Chetsford (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, i understand. Thank you for your contribution. FrankSupra (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • Support, Indef block of FrankSupra per Bbb23. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Nice one, kill the messenger. Thank you for your contribution any way. FrankSupra (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) "he (they) edit for 10 or more hours non stop each day. Last 24 hours alone, they made 40 edits." That is basis for neither complaint nor praise. Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is a really unconvincing argument for somebody being multiple people. 40 edits over 24 hours is not that many.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've made more than a thousand edits in the last 24 hours, and I'm certainly not being paid to do so. jp×g 02:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  So June 8, Jingiby edited from 00:00 to 09:47 and made about 36 edits by my quick count, but they didn't edit for that entire 9 hours and 47 minutes, their total time in editing was more on the order of 2:45 - 3:30, on again and off again and on again. This is a perfectly normal and reasonable pattern of editing, and is in no way indicative of collective use of the account. As for the user being a a pro-Bulgarian NPOV editor, FrankSupra needs to provide something more than "look at all their edits", some specific evidence in the way of diffs. If they don't come up with that, then I think a block for making and personal attack, and doubling down on it, is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  I went back and forth on whether to post this. I looked through several weeks worth of Jingiby's contributions, doing random spot checks, and didn't see anything untoward. There's some clear conflict in the archives of their talk page, though, which made me curious. Looking at contributions specifically related to some of the recent conflicts brought up this edit, where Jingiby changed the nationality of the citizens in a 1900 census/statistical review from Macedonian to Bulgarian and even changed their religion from Macedonian to Bulgarian. I can't access the source, which is Bulgarian, and it's completely possible this was a correct edit to make (not the part of the Balkans I know much about) but hopefully it sheds some light on why there might be conflict here. I do find the personal attacks unsubstantiated and unwarranted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block for FrankSupra fro unsubstantiated (and easily refuted) personal attacks. They claim that they "can link every single edit of this account and point that it is from an undoubtedly pro-bulgarian narrative." I looked at the most recent substantial edit at North Macedonia[74], and this is a perfectly neutral, factual edit (would have been better it is was sourced, but no actual problem). Fram (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Farm:1 gives made up reasons of why Bulgaria vetoed Macedonia in 2020. article referenced that nowhere mentions "state-supported hate speech, minority claims, ongoing nation-building, historical negationism of the Bulgarian identity" as he claims. 2 Tries to push "Macedonia name was invented/introduced after 19th century" quoting selected sources. Easily disapproven. by Roman Macedonia, Macedonia in the bible, medieval maps of Macedonia, Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi 1650 manuscripts..3 changes a perfectly valid Pirin Macedonia to a more Bulgarian inclined term - "Bulgarian Macedonia"4 Adds an image and a note about literally pro-Bulgarian-nationalists- group activities, as the few more important information for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia paragraph. Just a few edits, from a single article Republic of North Macedonia, tip of the iceberg. Is it a pattern of a nationalist bias? I am no expert in Wiki policies and protocols. If i do/did something bannable, ban me. Some possible issues I see are listed here and above. I ask the admins If there is something not conforming with the Wiki standards. Thank you FrankSupra (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Somehow, I don't think Farm is going to respond ... @Fram:--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      • :-D Fram (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the example 2, "Tries to push "Macedonia name was invented/introduced after 19th century" quoting selected sources.": no, they didn't. They claim that Macedonia as a name for the region was largely forgotten / in disuse until the early 19th century, a century when in all of Europe nationalism and romanticism lead to a revival of "old" names, certainly those with a major history. Nowhere do they claim that "Macedonia name" was invented after the 19th century, that would be an exceedingly stupid claim to make and is completely absent from the edit you linked. Fram (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No it is not he is just editing nonsense to articles that are Macedonian to Bulgarian a lot of people attack FrankSupra you need to look the evidence is his contributions according to WPMAC Wikipedia once dealt with similar problems with the article North Macedonia before and the editor Jigby is a known example of pushing POV article but no one is doing a thing to block him again he needs to be blocked there is enough evidence to confirm that Jigby is a bulagria editor who pushes POV article and he needs to be stopped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.224.236 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. So far, I have refrained from commenting, but these IPs and newly registered users have gone too far. There are special trainings and online webinars on how to be eliminated in order to be blocked on Wikipedia. Systematic IP-attacks are organized against Wikipedia articles related to Macedonia. I have been declared a paid troll. There are calls to organize extreme elements from North Macedonia and to come and beat me in Bulgaria, etc. Slander, lies, fabrications, insults. I think that goes beyond all bounds. This has been dragging on for years. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just like FrankSupra, you have made claims against other editors which you need to support with evidence, or you too will be guilty of WP:Casting aspersions. Please post diffs or outside links which point to "special trainings and online webinars on how to be eliminated in order to be blocked on Wikipedia," etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have done it several times here, but here you are: WIKIPEDIA WARRIORS: THE NEW FRONT LINES IN THE BATTLE FOR MACEDONIA. And read on Reddit, p;≥ease: Jingiby is a paid troll, for which a Macedonian Wikipedia army must be created and paid for. Freelancers stand no chance. Also: Let's go to Bulgaria to beat him. There are also calls for me to be tried in Strasbourg. Jingiby (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby edits in the fraught WP:ARBMAC area, and has been dealing with brigading by new editors for many years now. It is quite clear from the contribution history that this is another such case, and it is surprising that it has been allowed to take up so much time here. If anyone has issues with the potential POV leanings of specific edits, they should raise it on the relevant talk pages. CMD (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I watched part of the anti-Jingiby YouTube (it's almost an hour long), and some of the comments by the narrator were eerily similar to those made by FrankSupra in this thread, e.g., how many edits Jingiby makes each day and how he works with a group of editors on articles to effectively shut down other users (FrankSupra's comment about a "collective account"). I have therefore indefinitely blocked FrankSupra, as really should have been done a while ago. It is true that FS stopped editing over 24 hours ago, but it is also true that there was a 3-month gap between his first edits and the edits here, so I had little confidence that he might not return.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What that user writes is pure propaganda and needs to be blocked indefenetly

Sri Lankan Civil War Dispute (again)

Sri Lankan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is another topic area that is the subject of battleground editing because it was a real battleground. The issue appears to be a dispute about how many people were killed. (One answer is too many, but that is obvious and says nothing.) Another dispute has been filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War But it appears to be a re-litigating of a dispute that User:Nightenbelle appeared to have resolved successfully in March 2021, in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

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

Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

At this point, I think that we have either or both of two alternatives:

• We can topic-ban some or all of the users. I haven't reviewed the case in enough detail to know who is the problem, and am inclined to the draconian solution of banning them all.
• We can impose Community General Sanctions for the topic of the Sri Lankan Civil War, which doesn't fall within the scope of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (because Sri Lanka is not one of the nations listed).

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

just a comment- this exact issue was solved, agreed on, the sixth version of a paragraph that we debated every nuance of for almost a month was inserted in the article and in 24 hours the involved editors threw the agreement out and went back to editing and reverting and arguing. This was “solved” for 24 hours and is a battle that has been raging for 4-5 months at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• From the previous WP:DRN: "At this point- I'm going to throw the infobox out of this disagreement- because you have changed your mind twice now. So- ya'll will need to discuss that back at the talk page, this DRN was about the paragraph, and that is the only topic I am going to agree to mediate at this point. Does anyone have any further problems with the paragraph or are we good to close? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)"

• The second WP:DRN is only regarding the Infobox. Namely, can Oz346, Obi2canibe and 84.209.141.236 please provide a WP:RS to support their edits/reverts listed below that claim 276,000 casualties? Like last time, the discussion has descended into accusations/incivility and stalled. Can the WP:DRN process please elicit WP:RS to support their text in the Infobox?

• @84.209.141.236: On 15th Feb 2021, the user made edit 1006891705 with no WP:RS.

• @Obi2canibe: On 28th Feb 2021, the user made edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS.

• @Obi2canibe: On 9th May 2021, the user made edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS.

• @Oz346: On 12th May 2021, the user made edit 1022832126 with no WP:RS.

• @84.209.141.236: Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, the user made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.

WP:Verifiability clearly states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with both User:Robert_McClenon and User:Nightenbelle that non-intervention does not appear to be an option anymore. User:Oz346, in edit 1015417372 modified the compromise text less than 24 hours after the WP:DRN process was completed, and refused to self-revert when requested by the mediator. I have not modified nor added to the compromise text. If I have transgressed the Wikipedia rules then, yes, there should be consequences. Please let me know which rules I have transgressed and what the proportionate consequences are. A Collective_punishment based on the actions of others or association would be very disappointing. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That edit that I did above was a non controversial edit, and it was just a clarification on the exact period the 40,000 deaths figure referred to (the last phase of the war). Without that clarification it would be misleading to the readers, who would take it to mean the whole period of the war (1983-2009). I explicitly asked moderator Nightenbelle about this oversight at the end of the first dispute resolution, but she did not reply to me. I would please ask everyone to read through the first dispute resolution. Those paragraphs agreed upon have actually remained stable for the last couple of weeks (apart from that oversight which I edited).Oz346 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It was immediately contested on the talk page- so... it was a contested change. You did not revert. You did not discuss. I had already addressed that concern in a previous version and your insistence on changing away from what was agreed on was yet another tactic to obstruct the process that I did not choose to acknowledge for another time. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not true. My concern was not addressed at all. You closed the discussion before addressing it. May be you missed my comment? Please read the discussion, I quote:

//Discussion about 6th version

The 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous. The way Obi2canibe worded it below seems fine to me:

"However, in 2011 the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths."//

The only reason it was contested by Jayingeneva is because he wanted to score some points that I had the changed your final rendition of the paragraphs. But he did not contest the accuracy of the statement during the dispute resolution.Oz346 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that was the only WP:DRN that I have participated in and thought I shouldn't comment directly on the text of other participants. I tried to focus my comments on the mediator's compromise text and replying to any questions I was posed. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. Are you saying that you dispute the fact that the 40,000 dead refers only to the final phase of the war? Because if you are not disputing that, the only reason you made it an issue was to score some points.Oz346 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: There is another instance (not involving me) where User:Robert_McClenon had to deal with User:Oz346, | "The reporting party at WP:ANI apparently didn't like the answer that I gave at Third Opinion." In addition to that, User:Oz346 has made some preposterous accusations. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That allegation should be removed as RD2, and is in itself sufficient reason to topic-ban User:Oz346. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it is not preposterous, it is pretty obvious that some Sinhalese editors want to cover up the crimes of the Sinhalese dominated government, and by banning Tamil editors, it will allow them to censor and distort the facts in Wikipedia as well. I think the non-Sri Lankan wikipedia editors can see that it is only Sinhalese and Tamil editors who are heavily invested in this topic.Oz346 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And regarding when User:Robert_McClenon had to 'deal' with me. That was an accident on his part, he missed the timings of my submissions to the admin board. He explicitly said at the close of that, that I had not done any violations of wikipedia policies during that discussion, and he can corroborate that here. I see you are trying your best to censor prominent Tamil editors on wikipedia.Oz346 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Are these the only users that are disputing? If they are, I'd say topic ban them. General sanctions seem too extreme so far for something that appears localised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The four listed here are the ones that are WP:BATTLEGROUND disputing. Other editors are involved with the article but have not had major issues I'm aware of. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am saddened by this jump to topic ban people. There are users here who I have reported for using sockpuppets to abuse me, who never got banned. But editors who generally do not cause any problems are being banned right off the bat without people even reading the full dispute. How is this fair? Oz346 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jayingeneva (talk · contribs) has accused the other parties of vandalism on multiple occasions [75], mostly against Obi2canibe (talk · contribs). I don't think this is 100% accurate, as for instance the two edits at Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka show that Obi2canibe allegedly conflated a higher death toll estimate from a different panel (full page history). And this diff at Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War seems to be an attempt to clarify a discussion by changing the indent. I can't talk further at the moment, but the summary search should tell us more. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment-User:LaundryPizza03 Where is the allegation of vandalism? If they did that, they should be topicbanned. McClenon mobile (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: The first link in my above comment goes to a list of edit summaries that contain accusations of vandalism, under the shortcut WP:VD. Here's the list:

1. Special:Diff/1010862789, on a clearly good-faith, but perhaps poorly worded edit by Obi2canibe that attempted to compare two different death toll estimates.

• Comment: @LaundryPizza03: and @Robert McClenon:: Can we please clarify this? My understanding is that it is WP:VD because I gave an exact quote in edit 1010727776 with the summary "Add the quote from the report to replace the inaccurate paraphrasing" to correct the inaccurate summary by an IP Address. Obi2canibe immediately reverted back to the inaccurate summary from an IP Address. It's not obi2canibe's words, it's by an IP Address. And he reverted back to the inaccurate summary by the IP address multiple times even though I gave the page number of the quote. If that is not WP:VD, clearly I don't understand what WP:VD is and would sincerely appreciate some assistance. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Special:Diff/1010869138, which undid an attempt by Obi2canibe to change the indenting in a discussion.
2. Special:Diff/1010871871, similar to 1010862789.
3. Special:Diff/1012728317, similar to 1010862789.
4. Special:Diff/1012729459, similar to 1010869138.
5. Special:Diff/1012731607, which undid another attempt by Obi2canibe to change the indenting in a discussion.
6. Special:Diff/1021091438, which corrected the death toll to 80K–100K and described edits 1006891705 and 1009458455 as vandalism.
7. Special:Diff/1022689241, which undid Obi2canibe's reinstatement of the 100K–276K death toll.
8. Special:Diff/1027593935, which undid an attempt by Oz346 to reinstate the 100K–276K death toll.

They dropped the same accusation several times at Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War, first in reference to the (initially unsourced) change by the 84 IP (from here on "1006891705") that changed the estimated death toll from 80K–100K to 100K–276K, then in reference to the same edit, then in response to an edit by Obi2canibe, then making the same accusation again towards Obi2canibe and the 84 IP and further accusing the former of acting in bad faith for not correcting their own edit, and finally this accusation directed at both. Based on the edit summary, 1006891705 seems to have been WP:SYNTH and not vandalism, so neither the 80 IP nor Obi2canibe definitely acted in bad faith. In conclusion, I think this may call for an interaction ban as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs) Yes, I have referred to WP:VD by User:Obi2canibe. I hope my usage of the term was correct. Since the WP:DRN that completed at the end of March, I have realised that WP:EW and WP:VD did not necessarily mean the same thing. I'm fairly confident I have used the term correctly since that time. If I have used the term incorrectly in some instances, I apologise to User:Obi2canibe for those instances. Would you consider these to be valid examples of WP:VD by User:Obi2canibe?.

• On 28th Feb 2021, edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address.

• On 9th May 2021, edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address.

• On 7th Mar 2021, 1010845835 reverted an exact quote from the document that the Article was about to an inaccurate summary created by an IP Address. Talk:Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka

• Again on 7th Mar 2021, 1010865972 reverted an exact quote from the document that the Article was about to an inaccurate summary created by an IP Address. Talk:Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka

Any advice on how you would recommend reacting to the aforementioned four examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Also, is extensively changing the formatting of other user's comments, multiple times even when asked not to, acceptable? --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment to User:Jayingeneva and anyone else - Content disputes are almost never vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Vandalism does not mean edits that you disagree with. Vandalism does not mean edit-warring. Vandalism does not even mean disruptive editing. You had been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that there is a definition to vandalism. You were yelling vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute. That is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Oz346

The allegation, made on 16 May 2021, against another editor, violates the assumption of good faith, and is a personal attack, but is too outrageous to be repeated here, and is, in my view, sufficient reason at a minimum to topic-ban User:Oz346 from all articles and talk pages related to the Sri Lankan Civil War.

• Support topic-ban, as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not outrageous, now that I'm going to be banned. The Sri Lankan government runs IT wings for this purpose. There are groups where Sinhalese youth are being recruited for this purposes, to fight a propaganda war online:

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/gotas-envoy-to-germany-wants-lankan-anti-terror-task-force-to-monitor-instagram-in-europe/

The Sri Lankan government has spent millions on official lobbyists:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16051177

Assuming good faith, is one thing, but when an Wikipedia user's sole existence is to cover up and downplay the final massacre, it becomes near impossible to assume good faith. Even the moderator Nightenbelle noted Jayingeneva zeal to downplay the atrocities committed by the Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan army on the first dispute discussion.

I will remove that accusation, but removing me only aids the evil people trying to cover up the full extent of the final massacre:

https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone

And atrocities like this, they are trying to hide:

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18447

Oz346 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

To further add to this, the said user 'Jay in Geneva' only started editing this page in the run up to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March, where the Sri Lankan government is trying hard to escape censure. Oz346 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe the UN relies on Wikipedia for information on who to censure? Honestly? Cause- I know we are big and important and widely used- but that's a bit of a strech bud. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The UN Human Rights Council is attended by multiple NGOs, Unfortunately many of them are not well versed with this topic, and this might surprise you, but Wikipedia is the first port of call for most lay people regarding an unfamiliar subject. It is not as unbelievable as you think. Members of the Norwegian Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission even described certain policy decisions re: the Sri Lanka conflict being made in the EU for example, being made at coffee shops! It sounds unbelievable, but this is the low priority and lack of care that was given to this issue by many international bodies.Oz346 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A general overview is NOT what they use to make decisions. They read briefings, reports, primary documents. the things we summarize. ANd this confirms you are trying to use WP as a persuasive essay to push your point of view- that is NOT what we are here for and makes you as dangerous as those you are trying to warn us of. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The whole argument here is on the numbers of people killed. It is not a persuasive essay. My contention is that the accurate figures of the death toll should be on wikipedia, and not be covered up, like how the tens of thousands of dead bodies were in 2009. I am not pushing any view. Facts are sacred, and Wikipedia should aim to be accurate, not a mouth piece for the Sri Lankan government and its apologists. Oz346 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say it, Wikipedia is more concerned about providing information from what can be verified from reliable sources than whatever is purported to be the truth. On the plus side, if your additions are considered acceptable by consensus after RSes report them as such, you can tell everyone "I told you so". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I am fully aware that governments engage in various sorts of propaganda and disinformation activities. In Wikipedia, if an editor disagrees with you, the good-faith assumption is that they disagree with you, and that neutral point of view is a corrective to disinformation, rather than that editors who disagree with you are engaged in disinformation. Also, see First Law of Holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support I understand there are agents of misinformation on Wikipedia, however users like this actually enable those agents to pass more false information because of their battleground npov behavior which distracts from more subtle attempts to push NPOV. And the accusations, lies, ignoring consensus, ignoring agreements, and just general rudeness turns other good editors away from these topics. People disagree.... doesn't make one person a hero and another a villain- just means they have different perspectives. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a villain is immature, and not conducive to creating a better encyclopedia- which should be all of our goals. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Long discussion with long posts collapsed for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"lies, ignoring consensus". Are you accusing me of lying? I have clearly pointed out where I asked you on the first dispute resolution regarding the problem I had with the wording of the final paragraph. Can you please point out the lie. Because I find that very offensive and a baseless accusation. Oz346 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Why did you not reply to my concern on the first dispute resolution? It was a genuine concern and of a non controversial point in reality. You are punishing me for ignoring consensus, but the first consensus was not a real 100% consensus, because I had a problem with that minor wording oversight which I made very clear from the outset. But you ignored me. Why are you ignoring this? And now you are making a false claim of lying? Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a villain is immature". Well for you this may be a distant topic, because it's not your family members who were buried in mass graves with no whimper of justice. I do regard these anti-Tamil racists who are trying their best to cover up the final massacre as despicable, immoral people. If that is not villainous I don't know what is. They are even destroying monuments made in memory of the dead. https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/protest-jaffna-university-authorities-destroy-mullivaikkal-memorial They want to erase the massacre from the history books. Oz346 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) You are lying when you say I didn't address your questions. I addressed your questions over and over and over during the DRN. In your last post- and only in your last post- I ignored the ones I had already addressed multiple times that you refused to drop- repeating why they were against WP policy for the 3rd or 4th time was not going to help the process. And these comments above- the insistence that you are the only person to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS this is why you need to walk away from this particular area of WP. You would make a great activist.... but not a good encyclopedist for this particular area. And do not assume that because I am not from Sri Lanka I don't give a damn. That is rude and just plain wrong. You don't know me, my history, or my feelings on issues. You don't know these things because this site is a place for neutrality. So I take my opinions elsewhere. So I suggest you strike that part of your comment. You don't get to tell me how I feel about any of this. And you don't get to assume I don't care. You need to check your emotions at the door before you edit here again. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC) I genuinely think you are confused and are mixing up the details of the first DRN. I am Oz346, NOT Jayingeneva. I was agreeing with most of the iterations of the paragraphs that you had wrote at each stage. Please read that whole discussion again. It was Jayingeneva who was constantly disagreeing with you! "I ignored the ones I had already addressed multiple times that you refused to drop" This is patently false. You never answered this one question multiple times, because this was the first time i even raised it in that whole long discussion! Please actually read the old discussion properly before making accusations of lying. It was Jayingeneva who you were having the repeated back and forth with during the DRN. I think you are referring to the exchanges with him. I'm copying and pasting both your versions of the 5th and 6th iterations of those paragraphs. In the 6th version you removed the mention of the 40,000 dead figure being only for the final phase of the war (for god knows what reason), and this is what led to my final question which you ignored: Fifth Draft of Paragraph The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.[112][113][114] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. [49][50] In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[115] The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[116] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[117] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[118] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[119][120] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[121][122] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[123][124] 6th Draft The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006.[127][128][129] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.[130] [49][50]However, in 2011, The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[131] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[132] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" while some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[133] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[134][135] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[136][137] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[138][139] Oz346 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support the battleground behaviour isn't showing much signs of abetting (including accusations of lying, casting of aspersions, ...), despite concerns expressed in this very thread. Allowing calmer heads to prevail seems like a wise move to prevent further disruption. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Cool_editing (despite the Wikiproject now being defunct) seems to offer some wise advice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The accusations of lying was made by a moderator, not by me or the other editors who are currently being considered for banning. Oz346 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Accusations of government conspiracy are unacceptable behavior, plus the cited diff. I note that this user has had the most involvement so far, except possibly Jayingeneva. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Grave accusations

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

---

I would like to report grave accusations, aggressive tone and insults on behalf of user Gandharraj towards several editors (me included) during a normal discussion at Talk:Hanna_Jaff. A handful of editors have been involved in the clean up of what appeared to be a PR piece, Hanna Jaff, which is now finally taking shape. Gandharraj joined in a day or so ago and began attempting to reverse the changes that were made by consensus over several months (all which were discussed in the talk page in question before editing). Over 24 hours Gandharraj proceeded to edit repeatedly without any regard for the talk page, to the point of starting an edit war between with all the editors involved in the talk page, which se continued to disregard in an attempt to include unreliably sourced claims - to the point of having the article fully protected by User:El_C. We then proceeded to review the sources presented by user Gandharraj, and after finding most had been dismissed as unreliable, Gandharraj accused @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself of having ulterior motives ("personal issue" with the subject), as well as being "sexists racists editors", when in fact we know neither the race or the gender of the editor, nor does the editor know our (three different editors) genders or ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, just a few moments ago Gandharraj admitted on the talk page to have had personal contact with the subject, having first met "the subject when she was 23 at a youth conference", and following the subject's life and career closely ever since. This personal COI is now evident, and explains the aggressive and personal behaviour of the editor Gandharraj towards the other editors. @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself have kept a strict encyclopaedic tone and pragmatic approach. I would like to continue a respectful dialogue until we reach a consensus on the article in question, but do not tolerate serious insults and grave, unfounded accusations during this process. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The user has indeed stated, at least twice, that the users they are disagreeing with are "racist and sexist" and also does appear to be (or have been) editing while clearly against the current talk page consensus. The edit warring would probably warrant a mainspace-page ban, but the personal attacks necessitate stronger action Nosebagbear (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for corroborating the information @Nosebagbear:. Unfortunately, only 40 minutes after you posted your response, user Gandharraj resumed the insults but now directly to me: "sexists or racist, I’m pointing at you @A.Val.sol" (22:57, 9 June 2021 UTC). I assume its because they saw that I reported the incident and has now decided to target me specifically. Intimidation seems to be the user's strategy to include unreliably sourced information, most of which had already been removed several months ago by general consensus between the editors involved (all documented in said talk page). I would appreciate if this resolved before further personal insults and attacks are fired. Serious editors cannot volunteer time to continue editing that page until we know the user is dealt with and we can proceed respectfully. I should not have to engage with that editor any further. Thank you for your help. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

While the first personal attack was more general and directed at all the other editors participating on that talk page (including me), the recent incident shows a blatant disregard for WP:NPA. Commenting on contributors, casting aspersions, making assumptions about gender and race, are completely unacceptable. I fully understand that Gandharraj is frustrated by the pushback from other editors, but that is not an excuse for immature behavior in discourse on a talk page. Especially if one has a COI, which Gadharraj has indirectly acknowledged, insulting those who are working in good faith on improvements is exactly the wrong approach to build consensus for changes to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the editor for repeated and now targeted personal attacks of a very high level. Given the potential "hot blood" aspect, it's possible there is a path for lesser sanctions. It does not factor in the non-PA aspects of this ANI discussion and any administrator is free to reduce or vacate my sanction without communicating with me beforehand Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editing at Cannabis in Wisconsin

Hello. There has been a disruptive editor causing problems at Cannabis in Wisconsin for the past 18 months and I think that something needs to be done about it. This user has not explained a single one of their 40 edits in the edit summary or talk page, has been asked to stop many times by several different editors, and doesn't seem interested in following the rules / conventions of wikipedia editing. Basically this person keeps trying to insert editorializations into the page that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia and that include no sourcing. Here are some of the more recent edits that this person has been insisting on lately: [1][2][3] and also some edits from farther back: [4][5][6]. The user has edited the page with two different IP's: 199.199.246.211 and 199.199.240.231. Thank you for your time.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Every single one of the edits from those two IPs seems to be a mobile web edit suggesting they may be completely unaware of any talk page messages (see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU or one of the previous discussions going back years if you're unaware of details). If their behaviour is disruptive enough then a block will still be justified and at least as it's a mobile web edit rather than an app eidt they should see block messages so could potentially be directed to talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks, I was not aware there is sometimes an issue with that but I think that this person is aware. I reverted their edits yesterday and included a link in the edit summary to my post here on the admin board. Still the person reverted again with no comment.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted again — I'd suggest blocking 199.199.246.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for chronic disruption, since the other IP last edited the article in April 2020 and no other editors in the 199.199.240.0/21 range have edited the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Independent admin requested: personal attack from User:A21sauce warranting escalation of block?

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

---

• A21sauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• diff of personal attack in question

See WP:ANEW for history of user reporting editors on the other side of a disagreement at Dianne Morales. User made a personal attack against those other editors at Talk:Dianne Morales (diff). In the interval while I was blocking A21sauce for edit warring, user made a similar personal attack against me.

I feel too involved to escalate this block for WP:NPA. I request a second set of eyes to review the situation.

Be advised that the user is blocked and cannot comment here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Done; the block no longer has an automatic expiration date. As the user can't comment here, any questions or advice about this situation should be written at User talk:A21sauce. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE editor casting aspersions and filing a frivolous Arbcom request

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

---

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

What it says on the tin. Frivolous requests at ArbCom (from an account whose first edit is from April 29, and who hasn't edited much since then), broad-ranging aspersion casting ([76], [77]), what seems to my mostly uninvolved eyes as harassment of Genetics4good. The editor seems to have a WP:RGW attitude, on top of all else. @Primefac: If you feel uninvolved enough to act on this (and spare me having to go through the formality of giving them a notice). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have seen the deleted ArbCom request by the subject editor, and the spam that they dumped on multiple administrators. I agree with RandomCanadian that the subject editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Canadians opinion doesn't count, Canada is as socialist as France today, I pity the mind of those who live in these places, soon they will be the wife of an Islamic... the Social Punisher who lives on an ice block that will never see the Amazon wanting to know more than the Brazilian who lives in the place of interest. Go coward, ban my account. The poor guy who shows the truth of this contaminated waste has to be banned, right. Smart people bother the herd of trained monkeys, right. The German Wiki has no credibility because it is biased, the French Wiki is ridiculous because it only has leftist militants, the Portuguese Wiki is a dictatorial pot of little friends, the English Wiki is handed over to a 15-year-old mental group who live in a New York-California-London-Ottawa big cities bubble that believes in Greenpeace junkies that will die without seeing a forest in life. Do you really think that someone who is not a communist believes these rubbish articles about the Amazon written by communist party soldiers? Corbont (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The rant directly above is all the evidence needed for an indefinite NOTHERE block, which I have just applied. Oy vey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Johnjoshua1 and user page blanking

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

---

• User:Johnjoshua1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Perhaps an administrator could try and explain that page blanking of user pages isn't really part of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. They have posted "Artice Create by me (DONT DELETE ME HARD WORKING ARTICE OR I WILL ERASE YOUR WIKIPEDIA PAGE!!)" which might be a violation of WP:POLEMIC, but isn't a huge issue. The bigger problem is that they're actually blanking user pages. The first one I saw was this, where they blanked the user page of an administrator named Diannaa; so, I added {{uw-disruptive1}} to their user talk page this edit. They blanked the warning which is OK, but I was in the process of posting this when they did and got an edit conflict; so, I decided to add it anyway to try and clarify why I added the level-1 warning. They blanked that as well, which again is OK. What isn't OK is that that they also blanked another user page (this time a bot) with this edit some time after I issued the first warning and was making my second post on their user talk page. Maybe the page blanking will stop now, but there was also a post like this made to someone who added a speedy-deletion notification to their user page the other day. Everyone gets frustrated and makes mistakes, and that's OK. Maybe an administrator could politely stress that this type of disruption shouldn't be continued because it will almost certainly lead to a block if another user page is blanked or more WP:NPAs are made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: just an FYI, your first diff link does not work. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Elli. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks AcroterianAcroterion. They might be offline now since they haven't responded here or to your post, but at least now they won't be able to claim that nobody "warned" them to not do this thing again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly - You accidentally misspelled the name of User:Acroterion, and pinged a user ID that was blocked for being an intentional misspelling of the name of an administrator. Things happen. Carry on. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon. My apologies Acroterion. I guess I'm not the only one with a fan club (MarchjuIy). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it took me a minute to figure that one out. Sneaky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't just the page blanking, though – there are the fairly trivial childish personal attacks (here, here), but also some serious copyvios, deleted as such (this, this). The user received a final warning for the behavioural problems from Drmies here. I was about to indef the account when I found further copyvio at Draft:Kelly Tshibaka, but it turned out that had been added by a different user; however, I'm still not sure that that isn't the right option here – I don't see any evidence that he's understood our copyright policy, or indeed understood that we have one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Justlettersandnumbers, I'm with you, and I think an indef is justified. That warning was a while ago--who goes around blanking other peoples' user pages?? Drmies (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. I've let this stew for a few hours in case any objections were raised, and have now indeffed the account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Cheese editor on Fire engine

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

---

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

Disruptively editing Fire engine to, among other things, change the name against consensus to "Fire truck". Warned on their talkpage multiple times to no avail, has moved the article falsely claiming to have a consensus, accuses others of vandalism and asks them to discuss on talk while himself refusing to engage in good faith. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Just an observation: this sounds like a kid. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked, but that's probably why they're not getting the point. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A perfect illustration of this editor's behaviour is the justification given for the page move "had a discussion on talk page and majority of people agreed that i should/ can" - in truth two people (including myself) responded and nobody agreed at all. I think Rockstone35's observation has it nailed. Simply stop this editor making any further edits in this one article. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one month from Fire engine and its talkpage, as they have disrupted both, and also warned them to stop referring to good faith edits as "vandalism". Bishonen | tålk 08:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC).

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

i disagree it is fire truck im not backing down -cheese editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese editor (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And therein lies one of the disruptive problems which has caused your partial block: refusal to accept consensus. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring warnings, not using edit summaries

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

---

Young English Actor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits without providing edit summaries almost all of the time. They have been notified about the importance of summaries by four users, all of whom were ignored.[78][79][80][81] These diffs make up only a small portion of the plethora of warnings they have received (and ignored), as seen on their talk page. KyleJoan^talk 07:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to thank KyleJoan for bringing up this issue. Often times, the editor's behavior escalates to disruptive editing. They have been warned multiple times about edit summaries but have yet to address any of the concerns on their talk page; often they use the practice quietly unreverting their unexplained edits, again without initiating discussion or providing an explanation. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and necessitates the collaboration of other editors to build a fruitful encyclopedia.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

While editors are strongly encouraged to use edit summaries, it is not required by policy. — Ched (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to be a mobile editor. They have only ever posted on talk pages around six times, and have never posted on a user talkpage ever. It is entirely possible that they have no idea they have a user talk page, and that this is related to Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs. CMD (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the mobile interface allow users to see others' edit summaries? Young English Actor has repeatedly linked 12th Academy Awards in Timothée Chalamet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) even though each revert had been accompanied by a MoS guideline that outlines why including the link had been inappropriate.[82][83][84] If they are able to read others' summaries but choose to ignore them and we can't reach them through their talk page, then how are we supposed to work with this user? KyleJoan^talk 08:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question, perhaps Suffusion of Yellow might know. I remember in a previous similar situation an administrator blocked a mobile user for a short time with a notice linking back to the talkpage. If that route is taken, then perhaps the large number of generic warnings on their talkpage can be removed and replaced with a custom message covering what they should be aware of, in case they do finally realise they have a talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

For the most part, edit summaries appear to be visible in the same places they are on the desktop version, i.e. the page history, revert notifications, and the watchlist. But if they don't look at any of those places, they won't see them. If they opened their revert notifications, they'd also see their user talk notifications. As for contacting them short of using block messages, User:Rummskartoffel/payattention.js (see there for usage instructions) or custom edit filters targeting this specific user might also be worth a shot. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that looks useful. I wonder if we could develop a more friendly one, and perhaps a more final one, similar to the different levels of twinkle warnings. CMD (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The exact message can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis, but I don't really see the need for warning levels with this – it's not aimed at editors who are wilfully ignoring messages, but at those unaware somebody wants to talk to them. It's a last resort to avoid having to block them. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've little experience with scripts but Young English Actor has only continued to ignore edit summaries (both theirs and other editor's) since this discussion began and I'd say it's best for a warning to be put in place as soon as possible.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on this interaction, it appears that they are able to see others' edit summaries, which means they have just chosen to ignore them, so I hope an administrator takes action and uses the user script Rummskartoffel suggested. In the meantime, I'm going to link their user page and their user talk page in the summary for this edit as a final attempt to reach them. KyleJoan^talk 02:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Daps166 on Tom Brown (chef)

Daps166 has added contentious material on Tom Brown (chef) (see here) which I removed based on WP:BLP as the sources were WP:DEPRECATED. I explained this to Daps166 here but they added it a couple more times while calling me "a fucking idiot" as well as a "scum cunt" who covers up domestic abuse. They have added this information four times today and various IPs have over the past couple of days. They may or may not be related. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The rudeness displayed by the user in question makes it clear they are WP:NOTHERE. To any admins reading this, I suggest blocking said user for the time being. --KingErikII (Talk page) 13:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added relevant information in the public interest which Pedro keeps deleting.

Abuse allegations from Tom Browns wife are not defamation and are not contentious.

It is a fact that they have split up and a fact that he was arrested for common assault and false imprisonment.

This information is in the public interest as the #metoo movement has shown.

You are deleting relevant information that is very serious and should not be covered up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daps166 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats, but you could probably pile on some other reasons as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have turned off talk page access as they are continuing to be abusive, and have given them advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this - I have nominated Tom Brown (chef) for AfD. The "abuse allegations" mentioned by Daps166 are corroborated .... in The Sun and the Daily Mail. I am happy to believe what Julieanne Brown has reported on her Instagram account is true, but that does not mean we ignore WP:BLP and paint Tom Brown as a criminal without at least both sides of the story reported in reliable broadsheet sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

With the focus on refs from the Sun and Daily Mail on abuse allegations, is this another sock of Brian K Horton? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Personally I doubt it, from a behavioural standpoint they don't seem to match at all. Notably:

• Brian K Horton tends to write enormous, often 1000 byte plus rants when engaged in conversations, this account mostly answered talk page messages with single sentences.
• Upon being told that the Daily Mail and Sun are unusable as sources Brian K Horton typically starts running round all the various noticeboards insisting that we need to make an exception and that they should allowed to use them as sources, this account stopped using them and started trying to source the information to other (still terrible) sources, e.g. instagram.
• This account makes a lot of wiki-markup errors that suggest they are a genuine newcomer, errors that I've never seen Brian do before, e.g. formatting references as external links, putting signatures on new lines so they end up in code markup, stray bits of markup in comments (e.g. there's some random asterisks on their talk page).
• This account has been editing here intermittently since 2017, and hasn't got caught up in any of the previous checkuser searches or tried to source stuff to the daily mail in that time.

CaptainEek blocked Mr Happy Shoes as a sockpuppet of Brian a couple of days ago, an account which does match the typical behaviour, but this account seems to just be an extremely inexperienced editor who didn't understand the sourcing requirements when adding information on crimes to BLPs. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

..... or that screaming the "C" word in ALL CAPS is not an effective dispute resolution method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And the "C" word is... civility? EEng 21:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Cauliflower, obviously. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought is was cantaloupe... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish it was capybara—blindlynx (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Lutesque

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

---

I left a warning on this user's talkpage after unexplained content removals on Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Bucky Barnes. Other users seem to have shown concern over unexplained content removal on the user's talkpage. The user then reverted this and later reverted again after I restored the warning, both with WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries with WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. IronManCap (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

More accusations and explicitly stated assumed bad faith (You are acting on bad faith) IronManCap (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Further avoiding me then complaning more to the admins only strengthens my impression of you.--Lutesque (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to your message. Please start assuming good faith. IronManCap (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand and apologize. --Lutesque (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

IronManCap probably shouldn't have reverted Lutesque on their own talkpage (per WP:TPO), but there is a lot of edit summary and talkpage incivility. I don't think that Lutesque is WP:NOTHERE, but they definitely need to be formally warned about their behavior and language toward other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: The editor has seemingly calmed down and has expressed a willingness to move forward constructively both here and on my talkpage, so I will let this one go and move forward. IronManCap (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your close; please don't close discussions in which you are a party. That said, there are behavioral issues that are bigger than just your recent interaction. Edit summaries telling editors to "fuck off" and calling them a "jackass" are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I was viewing this as a WP:WITHDRAW of sorts, but anyways I apologize. I personally feel like the editor should be given a chance to act with more civility given the recent statements here and on my talkpage, although I would defer if others find this a persistent problem. IronManCap (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A formal civility warning doesn't prevent the editor from having a chance to act with more civility; in fact, it encourages it. The next time an edit summary (or talkpage edit) involves calling other editors names, Lutesque should be blocked. They've gotten more than one warning on their talkpage, and that hasn't curbed the behavior. WP:CIVIL is not optional. Grandpallama (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand and agree. I'm just hoping the editor can change now that they have acknowledged the issue for the first time. If they persist, of course they should be treated accordingly. IronManCap (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I get that I am on my second strike and third I'm out. If I get indefinitely blocked it will be no one's fault but my own. Not trying to excuse my behavior, but I will try to do better now that I'm on thin ice.--Lutesque (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Concerns from User:ChrisCalif

I was blocked for more than 30 hours because I was criticizing the editors arguments and their behavior that want delete the quantized inertia page. One does not block other editors (that are not here frequent that they have less privilege) for discussing well inside the rules of Wikipedia. One can of course try to twist the rules of Wikipedia to cancel and block people pointing out weakness in arguments. While I was blocked we can for example see XOR'easter have been buys on top of the discussion page on deletion of quantized inertia. He has over and over accused QI for pseudoscience. The only sources we can find for this is a popular blog article on the Forbes platform + journalist article citing anonymous physicist. XOR'easter now has stated see his amendum comments close to top of the page, where he states

"Wow, this page has been busy! And no, getting a grant does not imply wiki-notability." Well the grant is just one of a long series of lists of reasons the article imply wiki-notability, please read the whole discussion on and all the references and points given by other editors etc.

XOR'easter second point "we could have a long and entertaining discussion about the demarcation problem, and how one might draw a distinction between pseudoscience (e.g., creationism) and shoddy science (e.g., N-rays). However, that is largely beside the point here. The problem is the paltry state of the available references, and the fact that the sources that do exist fail to support more than a mention in another article. "

What is XOR'easter relabel sources for pseudoscience or shoddy science? The theory has like 25 peer review published papers or so. Ten papers or so have at least one more co-author or are written by others than Dr. McCulloch (the inventor of the theory). A peer reviewed papers is indeed peer reviewed that means independent referees and editor(s) have endorsed the paper for publication after going carefully through it and their comments have been addressed or fixed. XOR'easter and Tercers only sources for their claim of pseudoscience and now perhaps switched to claim of shoddy science is a popular blog article on the platform forbes, and some journalist article with reference to what some anonymous physicists said. It is XOR'easter that here has a huge problem in his argumentation and documentation. He must either think he stands above scientific journals editors and referee, that is above the whole scientific process, or perhaps he indeed has an agenda.

This is close to full censorship, not only of an idea, but also of editors pointing out the weakness in the arguments given by these editors that work hard to censor quantized inertia.ChrisCalif (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that as a private entity, Wikipedia can determine what appears on its computers, just as you can determine what is said and done within the four walls of your residence. There are no rights to posting any idea on Wikipedia and Wikipedia does not have to provide equal time to all points of view. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisCalif Also note that you are required to notify any other editors you are talking about of the existence of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Censorship is when someone tells you what you can't put on your website, it is not when a website that is not yours tells you that they won't publish something for you. Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want in your venue, but it also makes sure that nobody else's venue is required to publish it if they don't want to. In short, you are not being censored here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that N-rays haven't been completely forgotten. For a similar case in organic chemistry, see Talk:Tetrahedrane#Fantasy island. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

" it is not when a website that is not yours tells you that they won't publish something for you. " and it is when one are blocked from discussions on a page that is meant for discussion on arguments for or against deletion. To block someone then discussing well inside wikipedia guidelines is censorship. Wikipedia can must also have a profile outside that reflect how they operate, a few editors seems to destroy for wikipedia. I have warned against it, but it is ignored.ChrisCalif (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Again nobody has a right to edit here, or to publish specific information. We have behavioral standards that you violated and that is why you were blocked. We have editorial standards that must be met or content is removed. If you don't like it you can contact a hosting company and put up your own encyclopedia, but you are not entitled to decide what goes here.

I am going to warn you now that if you continue to accuse other editors of this nonsense it will result if further blocking and most likely longer than 31 hours which was very lenient. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of your postings of this exact same message in multiple places. You are getting attention here, you should not be copy/pasting the same thing in irrelevant places. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see you have returned your extensive copy/paste back into the AfD after me asking you not to on your talk page[85]. I have participated in that AfD so I will leave this to another administrator to resolve. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked ChrisCalif from editing the AfD for the remainder of its duration. In my opinion, he has said his point of view loudly and clearly, and now needs to sit back, let other people give their views, and let consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Their edits, now on the talk page of the affected article, are also disruptive. I've removed a recent personal attack, and if this wasn't already here I'd have given them a warning, but as it stands a full block for the duration of the discussion might be the only solution here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • They left an angry note at my talk page, accusing me (or maybe the community as a whole) of having a vendetta against quantized inertia (that would require me to care much more than I really do) and continuing not to get the notability-established-by-secondary-sources idea. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Ritchie333: They're now resorting to using edit summaries to post their rants. Mind redacting their edit summaries as harassment (WP:RD3) and giving them a permanent whack with the banhammer? They've obviously not heeded any warnings whatsoever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

        RandomCanadian, I'd really rather another administrator took action. If every sanction comes from a completely different and completely uninvolved admin, it makes it harder for the conspiracy theories to stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • I have blocked to coincide with your duration, Ritchie333, although I was tempted to indef as NOT HERE. Anyone is welcome to adjust if needed. Clearly the disruption needed to stop. Star Mississippi 17:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

IP SPAs at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia has also attracted several IP editors, such as 47.55.230.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have edited exclusively in relation to this AfD. XOR'easter at an FTN discussion suggested that these users are being attracted from the the social media page of inventor Mike McCulloch. I'd like to know if I am required to notify any of these users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• For proof of the Twitter canvassing (I assume this is correct under WP:OUTING since the inventor himself doesn't appear to be here), see this. Of course, as you noted, already solved for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • He's been tweeting about it since the 8th, saying I've been told by someone who should know that these negative wikipedia editors are probably being paid. If only! XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

    Being paid is an option!? /s SamStrongTalks (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

    The last time I got an email from a brand-new account asking me, as an experienced editor, to improve an article, the cheapskate didn't even offer me any money. ARBCOM sympathised, and courteously told me the Wikiname of the sockmaster. Narky Blert (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

    I think we can just humour them with WP:FLAT, as usual for fringe theories. That and politely send-off any which keep being utter jerks by engaging in the good ol' name calling and ad hominems tactics. As if that ever produced anything positive... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is all part of my master plan. Join Wikipedia in 2006, edit for 15 years, then finally when the moment is right get my huge cash payout by arguing to remove fringe nonsense from the encyclopedia. Private island here I come! (sarcasm) HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Stonewalling a merge 6 months after AfD

In December 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 was closed as a merge of the two nominated articles to one other article. Most of the content of the two articles (Structure of the Italian Army in 1974, 123953 bytes, and Structure of the Italian Army in 1977, 155230 bytes) is already present in Italian Army 1975 reform (280035 bytes), compare e.g. a section on the infantry brigade Friuli which became the motorized brigade Friuli in 1975[86]; the info from 1974[87] and 1977[88] is nicely contained in the 1975 article.

So after waiting 6 months, I redirected both articles to the merge target, as no further merge was in my view necessary. Noclador, the sole "keep" voice at the AfD, has undone the redirects, insists that I must perform the merge to his liking somehow, and has then posted a "warning" on my talk page that further attempts to redirect this will get me blocked.

I have, after the severe personal attacks in the AfD and previous revenge edits by Noclador, no interest in prolonging discussion with them any longer (I tried discussion at Talk:Structure of the Italian Army in 1977, but have little interest in continuing it after the block warning), and would ask someone uninvolved to deal with this. They are free to improve the 1975 article with further info from the 1974 and 1977 ones of course, but claiming that the current version isn't merged enough ("please merge these two pages line by line"), while refusing to do what they judge is necessary themselves (thereby neatly maintaining the status quo they nearly alone supported at the AfD) is just making a mockery of the AfD process. Fram (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have literally just redirected the article again before seeing this. As I said on the talkpage, if any information hasn't been merged by now (6 months later), then IMO it's not important to include anyway. Further, if the result of a "Merge" AfD could be obviated by the editors with suitable knowledge simply refusing to do it, then we clearly have a problem. Regardless, all of the information is available in the history if Noclador or anyone else wants to merge more of it. If they want to edit-war to keep restoring the original article, well actions have consequences. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have just reverted his reversion of the redirect on the 1974 page and have removed them from the see also of the Italian Army 1975 reform to stop circular redirects. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you both. If these edits stick, I guess this can be considered resolved. Fram (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• A question, though: why did User:Buckshot06 remove the merge-AFD tag? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

West Bengal economy articles

• Economy of Kolkata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disclaimer: Although I became aware of this issue through the actions of two editors, I am raising an issue of a wider pattern of behaviour across many editors and not focusing on the conduct of these two specific editors.

Looking at recent changes this morning, I saw an edit war between Meltry Filok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MADdutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Economy of Kolkata article about GDP figures. Neither party cited sources, and I partially blocked both from that article. I noticed the GDP data was unsourced, so per WP:V, I removed it.

I was monitoring both editors' activity, and I noticed MADdutta edit the Economy of West Bengal article. Again, the topic in play was GDP, but it was a different cast of editing characters, whom I have not interacted with.

At this point, it seemed to be systemic, so I brought the matter here to get more eyes on the matter. I'm sure it happens with other economy articles, but I get the feeling that we may need some focused attention to economy articles in West Bengal? Does this topic fall within the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan discretionary sanctions, to where the articles can be placed under deeper restrictions like the 50/300 requirement for editors?

Again, I do not seek specific action towards either of the named editors through this thread. They were just the proverbial tip of what I think is quite the iceberg, so I'm looking for action related to these two articles plus other similar ones. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

User PurpleSwivel and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

User:PurpleSwivel is has only edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, or userspace and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in issues related to same. They were blocked for 31h following an edit-warring report, and since coming off the block have proceeded to attack editors on the edit-warring board (link), post a tirade against editors on the talk page of the above article (link), and then edit-warred when others have removed them. This is probably prime for an indefinite suspension, but if some wish to consider a politics topic ban to see if they can co-exist in other topic areas, that would be fine too. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I had come across the post at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which was nothing but soapboxing and personal attacks this morning, but got distracted by something else. I came back to see they've reposted it and are also making snide comments in the thread at ANEW where they were already blocked and then socked logged out to take parting shots at other editors, and blocked them for a week. I hadn't seen this post yet. The editor is aware of the AP2 discretionary sanctions, and I suggest at least a topic ban from anything to do with Joe Biden is in order here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, based on this unnecessary grandstanding, I'm going ahead and doing it. They're topic-banned under the AC DS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

BhagyaMani and Elmidae reverting my edits thinking that is all an erroneous

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

---

BhagyaMani (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Hi and good evening, i am problem with them, one of them kept on reverting Animalworlds314 edits to demonstrate each animal's presence in each country or region, he may be blocked but i believe that he was not always wrong and that he presumably knew what he was doing. So returning to today, @BhagyaMani: and @Elmidae: have caused many troubles too far. Before that, each list of mammals articles contained mammals that became extinct in each region 2000 years or so, but they have caused enough trouble by removing them even when people feel like that they need to include them. Their reverts to me are disruptive. Can you please in any way, block both BhagyaMani and Elmidae? -- Tahrzan2105 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else hear some deafening quacking? 192.76.8.73 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. It's kind of charming when people think they have just invented socking, but man I fear this guy is going to become a time sink. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And also thanks again, Bbb23, for quick action to block this guy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At 2nd thought : I wonder whether it is possible to (semi-)protect the pages on Animalworlds314's watchlist? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

First, no one has access to a user's watchlist except the user. Second, it wouldn't make sense to semi-protect all the pages on a user's watchlist. Editors put pages on their watchlist for all sorts of reasons that wouldn't be useful for your purpose. For example, an editor may wish to watch a page that they don't edit simply because they want to monitor the activity on it. What would be more useful would be to look at the pages most frequently edited by a particular user, and those stats are available. However, an admin is not going to semi-protect a page based on the possibility that a sock may come alone and edit the article. Generally, articles are protected only if there is recent disruptive activity on the article. Best thing for you to do would be to put pages you think are vulnerable on your watchlist so that you can check to see if IPs or new users come along who behave similarly to Animalworlds314.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Obvious trolling by Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

• 2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I happened to notice an anonymous user using multiple IPs on this Dynamic range persistently overwriting the redirect above with a poorly sourced personal essay. Every attempt to revert this anonymous user has been met with reversal, with edit summaries like I'm going to continue reporting anyone who deletes the content of my page for vandalism. This to me looks like obvious trolling, and I also notice at least one violation of WP:3RR in the history as well. I have not reverted yet as I do not wish to be the subject of a troll report, as one of the IPs in the range has actually done to Onel5969 a few days ago. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably worth a month or longer block or partial block as they quickly came back after the last 2 day block #IP user edit warring, aspersions, refusing to discuss, reinstating problematic material at Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis. Also there's an older CU block and comments from the range suggesting this has been going on for months perhaps on a deleted page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Disney Junior logo (again)

Rodney Araujo (talk · contribs) is warring on Disney Junior about switching the infobox logo from the properly-licensed File:Disney Junior.svg to File:Disney Jr. logo.png on commons, which not only isn't transparent, but does not state the source of where it's coming from beyond 'Disney' (no URL), and despite several warnings, has persisted on adding this oversized logo to the infobox with the justification that 'they the channel uses more the 2d version that the 3d version', which for our purposes, 'what I see' isn't confirmable (and we prefer SVG images over PNG images). They've also tried to 'delete' the SVG even though it's clearly in use. I just want to make sure I've been proper in reverting the changes; I had this same dispute with another editor a few months ago. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR again

KIENGIR just reverted his userpage on huwiki to restore the personal attacks. I have reverted it per hu:KSZT, but I'm not autoconfirmed on Meta so someone else needs to report him to m:SRG for crosswiki abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs)

KIENGIR'S rant was beyond the pale. English translation He attacked myself, @Cealicuca, Robert McClenon, Boynamedsue, Azur94, Rsk6400, Robby.is.on, David Eppstein, Indy beetle, Deepfriedokra, RandomCanadian, Obenritter, Cullen328, Arminden, Elvisisalive95, Biruitorul, and Power~enwiki: and @Schierbecker:. I have filed a global lock request. [89] I've never done this before, so if someone with experience would like to look it over and amend it if necessary, it would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good BMK, I'd just edit and remove the * ... line but the rest is good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I second RickinBaltimore‘s endorsement. Kiengir has had over two months post-ban to contribute to hu.wiki (where he’s fluent in the language), but he’s spent that time sniping and griping at perceived enemies from this project, in an increasingly unhinged tone. Enough. — Biruitorul ^Talk 00:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you, User:Beyond My Ken. I think it is the same as what he posted about two weeks in English on the Hungarian Wikipedia. I agree that it is cross-wiki abuse, and that is one of the reasons for global locks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I for some reason can't edit the page over there, but I'd suggest you add a link to this discussion for reference. I note that I fully support the request. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What is this even related to? I only vaguely remember interacting with this user and don’t know why they bothered bringing me up. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle I suppose I better fulfil my alleged role as "useful idiot" and provide you with an answer. He was banned for a variety of situations which burned a massive amount of users' time, battleground behaviour, having competence issues and making it clear at AnI that he wasn't going to change his behaviour. It may be you interacted with him on a thread on nazi Germany which ended with an RfC on whether the nazis could be described as fascist? That was the straw that broke the camel's back.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to make a correction: KIENGIR wrote his rant in English on his hu.wiki user page, not in Hungarian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's mildly amusing that I am accused of saying that this editor has a "love of bludgeoning" in the midst of a lengthy rant that can be fairly be described as bludgeoning. Guilty as charged, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the chance they'll get blocked or banned at hu.wikipedia? Seems likely that such a block or ban would assist in the global lock request. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that @Pallerti: is a CheckUser on hu.wiki, perhaps they might be able to give us a sense of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've left them a message on their hu.wiki talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Unfortunately, I don’t know the story in depth, KIENGIR has edited very little on the huwiki, currently only 144 edits despite being registered ten years ago. Hungarian is his native language, never had a problem with his communication in Hungarian, he communicates politely. The userpage policy on huwiki is similar to enwiki, it should not contain comments that offend other editors, of course we will pay attention to this. I asked KIENGIR on his huwiki talkpage, I would like to know about the conflict from his point of view as well. --Pallerti (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - KIENGIR appears to be engaged in some post-block meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry on Category:Communist states and Category:Communism. Schierbecker (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing in violation of WP:ENDORSE despite multiple warnings

Hello, and happy weekend! My report involves multiple instances of edits by User:02rufus02 that are inappropriately sourced. While there are other forms of disruptive editing noted on their [page], I am limiting this report to additions of political endorsements to 2021 New York City Council election and 2021 New York City mayoral election that violate WP:ENDORSE.

The user frequently sources endorsements using campaign social media accounts and even unverified personal social media accounts. Below are examples, all from today:

• [90]
• [91]
• [92] here using unverified Twitter accounts
• [93] MANY examples, even where reputable sources are replaced with inappropriate sources without explanation
• [94]

Another editor and I have made repeated attempts to notify the user of their disruptive edits on their talk page and in our own revert edit summaries. Below are notifications left:

• [95] initial notice (at least regarding this specific issue) on June 8
• [96] warning today
• [97] final warning today
• [98] final warning #2 today
• [99] final warning #3 today (although this is really just a follow-up comment to #2, using a ping for good measure)

As of the writing of this report, the user has not made another edit. That said, not much time has passed since the final warning, and the user has already demonstrated disregard for policies, even after being warned multiple times. This is not a new user, and they don't edit infrequently, so they really should know by now what the expectations are, especially after being notified. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: On the positive side, the user added a section to my talk page in which they addressed the issue, citing ignorance (which I would characterize as borderline willful). I am assuming good faith and have no reason to think the editor is being dishonest. However, the user, after acknowledging both the issue and that they had seen notifications directing them to policies they are breaking, they made this edit, again against Wikipedia policy. While I still assume good faith, I believe now more than before that their contributions hurt the Wikipedia community and lead to a waste of their time, the time of other editors, that of admins (see: this post). Thank you. Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've given this editor a six month block on editing one article, 2021 New York City mayoral election, for repeatedly adding poorly sourced content despite several previous warnings. The block length extends past election day. The editor is free to make well-referenced edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

69.126.206.17 (and that same user) vandalizing The Voice, again

I wish to report on an ongoing edit vandalism and disruptive behavior by this IP address for its repeated, persisted vandalism relating to The Voice (American TV series) articles, both this, its violation of WP:MOS, and MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. I know it share the same group of IP address so I believe it falls under the same guy, doing the same thing as judged by his pattern (some even trip filter edits). I have spoke to him on his talk page but he did not reply or look at it. Courtesy ping for @JalenFolf: who reported this matter last week. TVSGuy (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. You many need to investigate the IP group 69.126.0.0/16 because I suspect that falls under the same group of addresses and the same user may have used multiple addresses to abuse it. I suspect it could be Sockpuppet.

To save admin's time on looking up userlinks:

• 69.126.206.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.126.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jalen Folf (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

TheHotwiki

Editor keeps reverting my edits. Claims that I keep adding red links when I was linking to a page I recently started. He delinked every page I linked, undoing most of my work today. Apparently, the guy just reverts without reading. Now he has the gall to warn me for disruptive editing. This guys trolling needs to stop.

See:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

Carl Francis (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Editing by Nnadigoodluck

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

---

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

I was going to leave this until the ongoing RFA was completed but I figured this was quite urgent and needed addressing. The editor Nnadigoodluck was first nabbed by Yunshui in 2019, where Nnadigoodluck was advertising their Wiki-services on Twitter, in a tweet that was swiftly deleted and Yunshui immediately revoked their Autopatrol rights for possible paid editing see here. It was later reinstated by Rosguill who assumed good faith two months after. Fast forward to yesterday when @DGG nominated one of their most recent articles for deletion see here. I was pinged to the discussion by Alexandermcnabb as a nudge to investigate possible undisclosed paid editing and whilst I found the ping to be mischievous, it turned out to be of great help to the collaborative project. Immediately digging into the history of this editor, i immediately discovered this article: Alex Nwankwo which had the image in it as his “own work” After leaving UPE template warnings on their userpage, which I should not have done since they were an experienced editor here. I decided to sort this out by discussing this with them not as a robot but as person to person, i went to their tp to ask how they obtained the image, they implied that it was in an award ceremony and by chance they took a picture of him see here, I found it to be too convenient but was fairly okay with the response, but then again I came across the article on a non notable businessman; Godwin Maduka with the image in it as it’s “own work” this time it was a major red flag as the picture was shot/taken up close, they again implied that it was a “by chance photo” at this point, I know this is covert upe. I do a thorough digging and I uncovered a mixture of creating good articles and including UPE articles every now and again. I unearthed a plethora of articles on very non notable “businessmen” “Entrepreneurs” “Philanthropists” most of which are currently at AFD with delete !votes. See here, here here and here for example, there are a plethora I’m still unearthing. Their two most recent articles where so dubious, @DGG had to come confirm the notability status of the articles of which I frankly told them that both articles were non notable possible covert UPE written by a brilliant editor who knew the art of WP:ADMASQ'ing. For full transparency I have suspected them of UPE in the past and shared my concerns with Drmies and MER-C but chiefly hadn’t acted because I have been in and out of hospitals. It is either they are not competent enough as per notability(GNG) policy wise, to hold Autopatrol rights or they are engaging in undisclosed paid editing of which they should be indefinitely blocked for either way they aren’t eligible to hold Autopatrol and by extension should not hold NPR rights. During our discussion they made a blunder by going “off topic”(classic deflection technique) and said I had an agenda to chase away Nigerian editors, which wasn’t true because I am a Nigerian and secondly is a brazen lie. This is me yesterday literally begging an editor to join WP:NIGERIA. Nnadigoodluck has asked me not to ping them ever again and I have respected that. Lastly perhaps a lexical error on their part, here they say they have “tolerated me all these years” which I find rather strange, perhaps just an error or an indication of a prior account. Should a Checkuser be optimized? Perhaps unnecessary, why I think they can’t hold the Autopatrol rights and should be removed is not necessarily because they create articles on non notable persons but because they are Promotional in nature, so what we have here is an editor with Autopatrol who creates promotional articles for non notable “businessmen” and “entrepreneurs” had DGG not put it upon himself to patrol the works of editors with Autopatrol we would have a covert UPE editor roaming free. I am hereby proposing both the immediate removal of their Autopatrol rights and NPR rights, because if you can’t yourself tell “promotional non notable” from “notable” you shouldn’t be patrolling the works of others, or in the very least, an indefinite T-BAN from creating BLP’s. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are proposing to have User:Nnadigoodluck's Autopatrol/NPR rights removed? Why isn't this a WP:COIN matter? BD2412 T 23:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412, yes indeed I am proposing that, I’m sorry if this is wrong venue, I was unsure of what venue and had that discussion here, is it possible for me to still move it to COIN at this juncture? I am willing to. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that this is a wrong venue per se, just that COIN is specialized to deal with this sort of thing. BD2412 T 02:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412, thank you, I haven’t much experience in the appropriate venue when it comes to reporting an “established editor” engaging in UPE, but now that I know better I would be keeping that in mind moving forward. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear I am proposing that both Autopatrol and NPR rights be revoked until they can demonstrate they understand WP:GNG and are competent enough to tell notable from non notable, allow me also say once more that if they were just creating articles on non notable individuals I wouldn’t be too bothered, but what is happening here is they are creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen and entrepreneurs which is the archetypal modus operandi of an undisclosed paid editor thus I am bothered they aren’t eligible to hold both aforementioned perms. Celestina007 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Per the comment that SamHolt6 dropped here. In my early days of editing i.e from August 2019 when I joined Wikipedia for the first time, every article I create, I'll announce it on Twitter. See this Archive link. That was how Yunshui removed my autopatrolled rights because he saw the Twitter posts and assumed I was advertising, but instead I was elated for finding out that someone can really edit Wikipedia even from Nigeria, while also sharing my Wikipedia experiences on both Facebook and Twitter. I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event even without knowing what Conflict of Interest was and also announced on my Twitter page as usual. He commented on the Twitter post and suggested some names that might be notable. Among the 5 names that he suggested, it was Krystal Okeke that looks like she was notable and I created the article three months after. I'm just seeing the Modern Ghana post for the first time today. If he claimed that he was the one that got the article to be setup, it might be because he was the one who suggested the names for me. I didn't receive any payment or compensation for the article on Krystal Okeke or have I ever received any payment for all the articles I've created. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn’t explain a whole lot of concerns raised, you have not explained in a plausible manner how you have an up close photo of Godwin Maduka as your “own work” neither have you explained the reason for creating promotional articles for non notable entities? as recent as 7 days ago, What part of GNG or what part of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT do you not understand? Of course, you understand GNG because I have seen you create very decent articles, showing a clear grasp of GNG, making covert UPE the only plausible reason for creating promotional articles on non notable businessmen, that you are intentionally being deceptive and insulting our intelligence here isn’t doing you any favors. Celestina007 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've already answered the question as regards taking Godwin Maduka's photo in an award ceremony here. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck: Out of curiosity, do you have an uncropped version of that photo? jp×g 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, Thanks for asking. It's been quite long I took the picture and sadly, I don't have the uncropped version anymore. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the answers appear to be too convenient. You haven’t still explained how two of your last four articles are promotional articles do you not understand what is written in WP:NOT? and for one with Autopatrol it is a serous concern. Celestina007 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

JPxG There's a less cropped version of the image available at www.nairaland.com/5266349/phil-robert-juliet-ekehs-wedding, but it's from an event several months before the date on Nnadigoodluck's picture so there must be some mistake. Pack My Box (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any relation between the OP of this thread and Nnadigoodluck? jp×g 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pack My Box That was the event in Abuja, Nigeria I was talking about. I was the one that took most of the pictures in the occasion. As I said above, I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia and didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time, since I created the article just around 4 months after joining Wikipedia. And the date on the picture was the date I uploaded the picture and also the date I cropped it. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck: I'm confused here. Above you said "I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event". So you first met Alex Nwankwo at this wedding? How come you were also the one who took the photos at the wedding which Alexreports aka Alex Nwankwo used in the PR post? Did Alex Nwankwo pay you so they could use your photos in their PR piece after this chance meeting? Finally, you say you "didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time". But you should have known COI for a while by now. When did you first declare your conflict of interest? Because from what I see only ~2 days ago a bit before this ANI, in the discussion you linked above [100] that all you said was "Celestina007, Of course, I took the photo in an event I attended and he was present too" which doesn't seem to make clear you became friends after this chance meeting at that event, sufficient that you let them use your photos in their PR piece and he suggested articles for you to create via Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Thanks for asking. I've known Alex Nwankwo for a while, before the event and the meeting was not by chance and yes, I sent some of the pictures I took to them. And of course, I didn't really know what COI was at that time and didn't declare any. My mistake was I didn't declare the connection later when I knew. The prior in an event was a wrong English, what I meant to say was I've known him before the event and not just on that event, which is prior to an event and I did clarify above when I said I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck I'm sorry but I am very confused by this. The picture of Alex Nwanko was taken at a wedding in June 2019 and posted to nairaland.com on 26 June 2019. The picture you uploaded to Commons (File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg) has metadata which says it was taken 12 December 2019. How could your photo be taken 6 months after the event? Pack My Box (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pack My Box, I cropped the photo before posting it. It's possible it recorded the date of the cropping. I don't really know how it works. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pack My Box: I think your looking for the wrong image. AFAICT, User:JPxG was asking for less cropped version of File:Godwin Maduka in 2019.jpg, but I don't see that image anywhere on the page you linked to. There is another version of File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Yes, you're right. The picture in question, is that of Godwin Maduka. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne Whilst there explanations seem to be contradictory and improbable & even if they were able to explain “away” how they got the images as their own work (they definitely have not thus far), how come they have been creating articles (very recently) on non notable persons, for example the one on Jennifer Etito which DGG nominated of deletion on June 3) I have asked that them that question and they seem to be evasive about it. To say it’s failure of comprehending WP:GNG is also improbable as Xtools show they know very much how to create good articles, the only plausible rationale appears to be covert upe. Which i can’t decide and only the community can. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• While Jennifer Etito's article should likely be deleted for failing WP:GNG, I don't actually see it as a particularly egregious article to have started - she has been written about by major Nigerian publications, there may even be a single article there that passes WP:GNG, someone who would think interviews count towards WP:GNG may have thought the subject notable, and it's not so bad to be WP:G11 eligible. The biggest red flag to me is the tweet, but that's long since been dealt with. Basically, it's possible, but I can't support this at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — A prerogative I very much respect, in fact precisely why I created WP:DBY. The problem is it’s Not so much the Jennifer Etito article, but in entirety, it’s the history of the article creator, and their articles, Yunshui made a case of possible UPE in 2019 and in 2021, the edit pattern is still a major concern. Mixing shady articles with very decent ones, is bad faith gaming and the most problematic is creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen a subject area flooded with undisclosed paid editing in Nigeria. Thank you for your concern and input. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I think one of the biggest issues here has to do with the reliability of Nigerian sources. For instance I've used Vanguard a lot in the past to support football articles, where reliability really shouldn't be an issue. The Vanguard article cited at Olakunle Jamiu Azeez is clearly promotional as it's reprinted word for word in other papers - that's probably the clearest "worst" article I've reviewed listed here. My concern really stems from the fact that some Nigerian businesspeople will be notable - Etito's actually a very interesting example, because she's not notable, but I also like to view notability as a sliding scale, and she's not clearly non-notable, not to a point where sanctions would be necessary. She's an example because I thin she'd be similarly sourced to a notable businessperson. That being said, the fact there have been some recent notability misses do demonstrate a need to remove auto-patrol, even without needing to make a determination on UPE. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about the editing without regard to discrepancies in the dates of the photos. It can be difficult to distinguish at first between a UPE and a non-coi volunteer who writes promotional articles because that's what they see here and assume is our general style, and because of personal interests writes on borderline subjects. Usually the good faith editor improves once their errors in style are pointed out to them, and they are guided towards more clearly notable subjects. Usually the UPE does not improve much, because they have to work on the topics they are being paid for, most people who are willing to pay for articles are. at best of borderline notability, and the type of article they are willing to pay for is invariably promotional. I cannot by myself easily distinguish in many fields between people from Nigeria who are or are not notable, because I am only beginning to become familiar with the reliability of the sources there. It is very important that we have skilled editors from that country, such as Celestina007 who do know the fields of interest and do know the sources, and are willing to work here on the endless task of keeping spam out of the encyclopedia. The indications of promotional editing by Nnadigoodluck are so great that I would normally unhesitatingly remove autopatrolled and NPR, and also page mover, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, except that other admins have removed and then restored the rights before. A number --perhaps most--of that editor's articles have been listed at AfD, and it seems from the !votes there, that they are going to be deleted. It is not just a question of the article on Jennifer Etito. Unless there's objections from another admin, I'm going to remove those rights, on the basis of low quality promotional editing. Possibly the user should also be blocked as a UPE. but that's just a little harder to determine. If another admin thinks the evidence sufficient, I certainly have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than an objection, I support DGG's planned course of action. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DGG, I'm willing to accept the admins decision on this matter and thank you for your worthy input. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on TBAN for User:Nnadigoodluck on creating BLPs, removal of my Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights

I don't know if this proposal will be accepted by the general community, but I'll give it a try. I've accepted my mistakes in my early editing days, creating an article for Alex Nwankwo that I'm close with and not declaring a COI and even failing to disclose the COI after I have known what it means, for creating promotional articles on some subjects. From henceforth, I'm proposing a TBAN upon myself from creating BLPs broadly construed, subject to review after a period of one year. My Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights should be removed as I don't need it to demonstrate that I can be trusted again. I don't need to leave Wikipedia as my experience over the years will really be needed in Nigerian related contents which still need lots of work. Pinging Celestina007, BD2412, SportingFlyer, Nil Einne, JPxG, 78.26, DGG, Nil Einne and Pack My Box who previously commented on this thread. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a reasonable solution that addresses the primary concerns brought up (the advanced rights and questionable notability of BLPs), while allowing Nnadigoodluck to edit in other areas to demonstrate over time that community concerns have been taken onboard. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support if the TBAN is extended to editing BLPs. Whether this editor is engaged in COIN editing is unclear on the evidence presented, but a total ban on BLP editing for a year would prevent shenanigans in that area. BD2412 T 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Possessing Autopatrol and creating promotional articles for non notable entities is a major red flag. Furthermore, and for clarity purposes, let the record reflect that, this is not about Nnadigoodluck’s “early days” of editing as they are trying to put the narrative as such neither is it because of the Alex Nwankwo article, this is about their very recent articles being promotional and on non notable entities. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support provided it is also broadened to include articles on organizations, andf provided w do not rule out the possibility of further action if it becomes possible to show they are in fact a UPE, or engaged in sockpuppetttry. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support with the restrictions mentioned by BD2412 and DGG above. While the voluntary ban is likely being requested to avoid scrutiny, the editor seems nonetheless capable of positive contribution outside of the COI issues mentioned here. jp×g 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I do not think a full ban on editing BLPs or organisations is necessary. Even if you take a cynical view, this proposal shows self-awareness and Nnadigoodluck will certainly know that any promotional editing will end up back here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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