Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089

User:42812 TV unable to heed warnings or listen

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

---

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

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

Pages targeted

• Positions (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Off the Table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Motive (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Little Things (ABBA song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Zara Larsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Anne-Marie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Poster Girl (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• La Fuerza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (issues include adding unsourced information)
• Little Bit of Love (Kesha song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Till the World Ends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• High Road (Kesha album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• When Christmas Comes Around... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• It Was a... (Masked Christmas) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Santa, Can't You Hear Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Confetti (Little Mix album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Slow Clap (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Let Me Reintroduce Myself (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• POV (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hurricane (Kanye West song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• and more.

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

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

I strongly believe the user is also a sock puppet of Zhmailik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and many other accounts he's created to evade blocks. The behavior is similar and the edits he makes are as well. 2600:6C46:4A00:4C5:DCC9:ECDF:7E42:EF83 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Not involved) - Would it be in interest to make an SPI if you believe it's a sockpuppet? SoyokoAnis - talk 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. 2600:6C46:4A00:4C5:DCC9:ECDF:7E42:EF83 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31h to reduce the damage, but a more permanent solution is likely needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: can you extend it to indef? This user is actually Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Zhmailik (compare the name with those at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zhmailik if needed). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Hurricaneinfomation

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

• I left a final warning as I'm about to go to bed and don't like to block and run. No objection to someone taking it further, but concur with @Severestorm28: that we're long past patience, especially with the recreation of Isaac. Star Mississippi 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Huh. I was about to mention that he'd only created three articles ever, but the talk page does look daunting, with all the warnings and pleas to engage in actual conversation over these edits. I also see some serious WP:OWN behavior with requests for page protection [1] [2] which run "I need Semi Protection because I don't want anyone want for anyone to vandalize/destroy my wikipedia page. Since I go to college and when I'm not here people can vandalize my page all they want to and I don't want for anyone to do that." I'd support a NOTHERE block. Ravenswing 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'd support with Ravenswing about the WP:NOTHERE block, because now, he's just asking me whoever deleted the Helene article. This user is taking it too far, especially with too many talk page warnings. Severestorm28 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nimmmad

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

Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Nimmmad. GiantSnowman 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And this editor still has never edited a talk page, including their own. Did I see somewhere that we'd partially fixed the 'no way to warn mobile users' problem? valereee (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've placed a 1-week from article space with a block message I hope they'll be able to see. Maybe that'll help them find their user talk. valereee (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - if they re-appear doing the same afterwards we'll let you know. GiantSnowman 19:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Pancyadams

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

Pages have already been deleted? Would you suggest an indef or topic ban? SoyokoAnis - talk 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The last article is still live (it was created today).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish Article was just deleted.

@Fram A topic ban from astrology topics would be ideal. But I seriously think this user needs help on those issues you stated. Especially 5 articles deleted already. So maybe a 2w or month block. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would go with an indef, but no problem if people want to try a more limited block (topic, namespace or duration) first. Fram (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted Draft:Ankit Sharma (Astrologer), which was in article space but was moved to draft space by MickyShy. My summary said "promotional language, self-promotion, A7, improperly verified BLP, NOTWEBHOST violation, duplicate also posted as Ankit Sharma - Indian Astrologer"--and they created the latter after Fram started this discussion. In addition, there's Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, which is an unattributed copy of Astrology with some changes, and Astrology Beliefs and the other are pretty much the same. All this (promotional writing, unsourced BLPs, unattributed copying to create fringe articles, thumbing one's nose at the community by creating another version of a promotional article while the first is being discussed, coupled with incompetence and copyright violations in their earlier edits, mixed with a possible COI for those universities) adds up to a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies I guess it does. So a topic ban is out of the question? SoyokoAnis - talk 18:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis, if a user has been blocked, it means they cannot edit at all. A topic ban is not needed until/unless the person requests unblock, which they would do on their user talk page. I'm going to suggest you try to avoid ANI for now, as you really aren't experienced enough to be helping out here. valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam

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

• Yes, I scanned your contributions because of your misplaced belief that translating content from other wikis excuses you from providing citations etc. A summary of my relevant edits:

• I redirected one of your articles and was thanked by a very longstanding editor.
• I came across Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury mis-citing sources and using circular sources, and nominated it for an AfD. This is a borderline case and might go either way depending on who shows up.
• I tagged Habibullah Qurayshi—which was already tagged for depending on a single source by some other reviewer—for potentially failing WP:N, which you are free to undo.
• I tagged Ismail Alam for using unreliable sources from fringe publishing houses.
• I discussed issues about your latest article (Nur Qutb Alam) at a talk-page section and provided some suggestions. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You do realise I'm only human. If you want me to address all of this it will take time. I just created the Nur Qutb Alam article and you've already criticised it... just give some time and it will improve. Be patient, don't be aggressive when addressing, and we can go through it eventually bit by bit. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Leaving a note at talk-page is not criticism, per se. I pointed out what is allowed as a source (and what is not) about articles concerning S. Asian History.

The articles which were tagged by me were written by you weeks ago. Tags stay for months, before being actioned: you have no worries. But, please do not write unsourced controversial statements (like at Syeda Shahar Banu) or delete sourced content (like at Titumir). Go through the articles, you have translated and cite every line to a decent RS. Else, remove them. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• SalamAlayka, it looks to me like Tranga Bellam is trying to help you rather than "nitpicking" or "trying to criticise each and everything". You'd do yourself a favour if you listened better to their comments. Also, I don't see anything "unpleasant" about their messages on your talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

I consider all of these to be serious red flags.

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

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

In my very much non-admin opinion, this is the kind of legal threat that deserves an immediate block, for at least some time. To my mind, there is a big difference between, "this is defamatory," and "unless this article reflects my preferences, I will bankrupt Wikipedia as an associate of the article's subject famously did to a media company." People who wander into WP:NLT territory should be warned. This is not a wander; this is jumping in with both feet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but... Where exactly is the threat here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, sbelknap described this as an "existential threat" to Wikipedia. The idea being proposed is that Wikipedia itself will be sued into oblivion by Yarvin's patron. This threat was supported by a totally unrelated legal case brought up by someone who is chummy with Yarvin. As far as legal threats go, that's pretty direct, but even without that, it still introduces a chilling effect to suppress sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is none. :: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats quoting from section on Defamation "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." sbelknap (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to explain why a direct quote of something he said, as supported by multiple reliable sources, is "defamatory". Yarvin said the quit part loud, on a blog he published himself, and reliable sources noticed that. That's not defamatory. Since you claimed that legal action was plausible, and used that threat to remove content from the article, you have made this into a much wider and more serious issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, see the diff: "This article defames Curtis Yarvin and is an existential threat to wikipedia. Interested editors can review the Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel events to understand the legal consequences of defamation to a media entity. The Curtis Yarvin article notes Yarvin's association with Peter Thiel. Being an anonymous wikipedia editor may protect that editor but that is not going to protect wikipedia itself from legal jeopardy. As one example, ... Yarvin writes, 'It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot).' ... This is grossly distorted by a journalist, and by the time it gets to this wikipedia page, it means precisely the opposite of what Yarvin intended." In addition to it being original research on Sbelknap's part to examine Yarvin's blog in search of potentially exculpatory ways to parse the latter's language—based on the transparently false premise that either Wikipedia or the reliable secondary source labelled Yarvin a "white nationalist" in the first place (they did not)—the above comment seems intended to create a "chilling effect" by raising the implication that Wikipedia itself (if not "anonymous wikipedia editor[s]" individually) will likely face "legal jeopardy" of an "existential" nature if the quote from Yarvin's blog is retained.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Independent of the question of whether this actually is defamatory, that is not remotely a legal threat. It's hyperbolic and overkill, but it's not a legal threat. For it to be a legal threat he would have to, well, threaten legal action. Flagging potentially defamatory content is a basic part of maintaining the encyclopedia. We have a whole series of templates for it. People should take care to not point out potential defamation in an alarmist manner, as that can be disruptive. And they should not do it as an excuse to cover up encyclopedic content, as may or may not be happening here. But it's still not a threat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware of those templates. That is a useful resource. Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As one example, see the diff "Yarvin has written in support of slavery" This is not what the cited secondary source asserts and the secondary source cherry picks text from Yarvin's writings. This and other examples in the article seem to me to be clearly libelous. For BLP, it is essential that wikipedia articles be scrupulously fair. sbelknap (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The legitimacy of the defamation claim is extremely important to whether or not this is a threat. sbelknap is essentially saying "it's a nice website you've got here. It would be a pity of anyone sued it for defamation". This is still a threat. In this context it can only be an attempt to preemptively derail the discussion with the veiled threat of a ruinous lawsuit. Why else would any editor of that article find background information about Hulk Hogan and a defunct gossip site relevant or helpful? If not as a "warning", why even mention it? Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that the user in question has refused to explain their objections to certain material, instead simply asserting The burden is on each wikipedia editor to avoid libel. I provided links to the primary source - this is decidedly unhelpful and creates a pointless game of twenty questions. If there is material which is libelous, we should change it, but if a user is unwilling to identify their objections, they are not acting in good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, by my interpretation, Sbelknap had not yet crossed the line of WP:NLT, but they are skating very close to the line of the very thin ice and that rarely ends well. Threatening to call out the "billionaire dogs" is not an effective debating technique. Efforts to bring the article more correctly into line with what reliable sources say is commendable. Threatening and intimidating other editors, and whitewashing article conten, is utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think much of sbelknap's hyperbole, but I'm with Tamzin -- that wasn't a legal threat, and interpreting it as such suggests an overactive imagination. Especially given that breaching NFT tends to bring down no-warning indef blocks on the culprits, I feel strongly that the tocsin should never be sounded for the same on the basis of inferences, interpretations, impressions, or purported "chilling effects." "If you edit against the way I like I will sue you/call the police on you," that is a NFT-level legal threat. This? No. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have previously been sued over editing I have done on Wikipedia, and I know many other editors have as well, so this isn't an overactive imagination. This kind of thing absolutely does have a chilling effect. It drives away editors, because it should drive away editors. Good-faith volunteers to this project should not feel obligated to have to deal with that kind of thing, which is why we have a policy on legal threats. People who have experience with lawsuits know they are not always a joke or an empty threat, and that's exactly the purpose of these threats.

What is an "NFT-level" legal threat. Do you mean NLT? Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sbelknap has a long history of repeated instances of edit wars and not good faith. He targets political and philosophy posts. See his talk page for a summary. This looks like a case for WP:BLOCKDETERRENT based on "#3 encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Boromeliad (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I just have to say, I find the interpretation that this is not a legal threat gobsmacking, but as noted, I am not an admin and will leave the subtleties to wiser heads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My edits are mostly of medical articles, particularly for pharmacology and medicine. I have consistently acted in good faith for my edits. In 2018 I was one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. If you look through my edits, you will find that I have made some useful contributions and also that I have learned from my experiences on wikipedia, as I will endeavor to do in this case. What I have learned here is that there are templates for addressing problems of defamation and libel, and I expect I will use those in the future to communicate these problems to my fellow editors. sbelknap (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I fear that what you have learned is that you may freely chill speech on Wikipedia so long as your threats are veiled in the mode of "nice website you've got here, it would be a shame if something happened to it." Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles

This IP has made unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles. [3][4][5][6][7] Please do something. Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

IPs adding unsourced, ethnically-targeted edits to a page

• Adamawa State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

I protected the page for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh's competence issues

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

---

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

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

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

Earlier today they submitted two requests to have WP:Protection policy unprotected [8] [9]. Both these requests have the utterly stupid rationale that "the page about protection shouldn't be protected" - not only does this have no basis in policy whatsoever it also makes no sense if given a second of thought - what on earth would be the benefit of unprotecting a highly visible troll magnet policy page?

A few weeks ago Neel.arunabh posted a question on the computing help asking why their Facebook app wasn't working and why a mobile game they played wasn't giving daily challenges anymore [10]. A number of editors wasted their time explaining that Wikipedia isn't Facebook, no one can fix the game or their app and that they needed to ask Facebook for support. They seem to have been completely unable to understand that no-one here could help them because a a few days ago they posted about the exact same issue at the teahouse [11] bemoaning that in the three weeks since they posted at the reference desk no-one had fixed their Facebook and that they thought posting at the teahouse would get it fixed because it has "higher visibility". "Can Wikipedia fix my Facebook" is the kind of stuff that newbies who've been here a few weeks post, an editor of six years tenure should know better.

Neel.arunabh seems to have serious issues accepting the opinions of other editors when consensus is against them and resorts to edit warring, disruptive editing and bludgeoning the process to get what they want. For one example look at the move history of I Love NY (2015 film). Neel.arunabh has decided that they don't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a 6 year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. They started by performing a series of cut and paste moves, see the edit history of this redirect, for example, [12]. Once that failed they tried to use the page move function to move the page to a different title [13], this was reverted and the page was moved protected. They have then spent the last 5 years opening various move requests for the page, basically the entire talk page of the article is move requests started by Neel.arunabh that were rejected by the community [14]. Today they've had another go at getting the page moved to another title, firstly they requested that the move protection (that was put in place because of their actions) be removed so they could move the page [15]. Secondly they filed a technical request to have the page moved, again without any sign of having a clue what they're doing. First of all they claimed that this is an "uncontroversial" move, something that is patently false, and secondly they were asking to revert a 6 year old move that occurred in the middle of their move war as an "undiscussed move" [16]. They then filed yet another requested move on the talk page asking to move the film away from it's actual title.

If you need another example of Neel.arunabh bludgeoning the process have a look at the redirect 🍜. Neel.arunabh decided that they wanted this to point at Ramen, and so they embarked upon a campaign of bludgeoning redirects for discussion until they got what they wanted. They first nominated this rediect for discussion in July 2020 [17] which closed as soft redirect to Wiktionary. They then re-nominated the redirect in August 2020 which closed no consensus for their proposal [18]. They nominated the redirect again in December 2020 [19], which again closed with no consensus for their proposal, despite them trying to do an WP:INVOLVED close their own RFD with the result they wanted [20]. Finally they nominated the redirect again in July 2021 which finally closed with the result they wanted [21]. Four RFD discussions about the same redirect in the span of a year is just ridiculous coming from one editor.

There are a load of other things I could bring up, like this AFD [22] where they turned a discussion about a scientific unit into a weird rant about their "female friends" and resorted to pinging random confused people about a discussion they had no involvement in, or all manner of things that they've collected talk page warnings for over they years but this report is already really long. Fundamentally I think that despite having been here for 6 years Neel.arunabh is disruptively clueless about huge parts of Wikipedia policy and guidance. Their contributions here, especially in administrative areas, are disruptive, and they seem to be unable to accept consensus against them. For the overall good of the project I think a block is required, per WP:CIR 192.76.8.88 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

break

I have very few competence issues, but I learn from them. Back in May, I tried moving Tholi Prema (2018 film) to Toliprema just because of DaxServer's example on Talk:Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam#Requested move 8 May 2021. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and you caused a discussion to have to take place because you moved it away from the WP:COMMONNAME, and they reverted your move. Not sure why you brought that up, that isn't helping your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I learn from every mistake I make. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's less helpful than you realize, if you keep making more, new mistakes that are very similar, telling us you didn't learn much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting, as it may be relevant, that I have opened a discussion at RFD regarding 41 redirects created by Neel.arunabh. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• That was definitely long, but actually pretty concise, there is just a lot of material to cover. I tend to agree that this is a serious WP:CIR issue, and it seems to be having a parasitic effect on the encyclopedia. I would support a block. We aren't therapy, and time is simply too precious to be wasted this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I was considering opening a discussion following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_12#Yaraana_(2014_film), as the inability to evaluate English-language sources demonstrated by their participation in that discussion is a serious problem. To add to these concerns, Neel.arunabh has admitted to copying other editor's comments to guide their participation in talk page discussions. While a degree of mimicry may be appropriate, the error that Neel.arunabh was apologizing for in this discussion suggests that they are in fact copying comments whole-cloth and then lightly editing, in this case leaving in text that was only relevant to the specific arguments of the discussion from which the response was copied (I believe a similar exchange in an RfD discussion that I had with them but have not gone hunting for this diff). This behavior raises concerns about both English-language comprehension and potentials for copyright infringement in mainspace. I think that a CIR block would be reasonable, and Neel.arunabh's response above (I have very few competence issues, but I learn from them) does not inspire confidence a) that their English difficulties are behind them or b) that they are capable of reliably recognizing when and where their English falls short. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I do learn from every mistake I make and I do not repeat the same mistake again. See the first time I was blocked. That was because I kept removing essential references from pages because of reference errors and started edit warring. Now, I do not delete references. I was recently blocked for edit warring over a different theme. I no longer perform copy and pate page moves. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The report here details you reporting your facebook issues, and after it was explained that that was a mistake, you then did it again at the teahouse. If you learn from every mistake, why did you do that twice? MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I grow up to make more helpful edits. My own move-war that was contested by an RM has been the been the main inspiration behind my current RM at I Love NY (2015 film), because now I have learned what is WP:COMMONNAME and to look for the spelling in English language reliable sources and not on fan-made posters. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The thing about "protection page shouldn't be protected" reads to me as nothing more than a joke and can probably be ignored. (Would make a good WP:APRILFOOLS candidate though). No comment on the other issues presented at this time. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:7527:31CC:E739:B1A (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the diffs I provided in the OP are just a small selection of problematic behaviours from Neel.arunabh, it is in no way comprehensive and I could easily have quadrupled the size of the report (but then no-one would have bothered to read it). I didn't even mention things like their abusive sockpuppetry and logged out editing as OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 108.35.3.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which they used to do things like remove speedy deletion templates from pages they had created [23] [24] (coincidentally the same set of redirects @BilledMammal: has just nominated for deletion, double voting in the RFD about 🍜 [25] and edit warring across a number of articles. I could also bring up things like this move review, which they seemed to open not to contest the result of the discussion but because they wanted someone to explain policy to them [26]. I could also provide a huge number of diffs of them edit warring across a huge number of pages, look at the histories of 🙏, 🙏🏼 and 🙏🏿 for example [27] [28] [29]. There are also their disastrous attempts to fix things, like "fixing" reference errors by deleting references and content from articles. They claim above that they stopped doing this in 2015 after a block for edit warring, something that is patently false as a look at their talk page will show them collecting more warnings for the same behaviour in 2017 [30] and 2020 [31], in the last one they ask "how am I supposed to fix reference errors except by reverting the page to an old version" - someone with this little clue shouldn't be trying to fix reference errors, in fact they shouldn't be editing at all. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I admit that cracks like "I am just saying that I will not accept one thing unless I get other things as well" don't fill me with confidence. Something that Neel.arunabh seems to have a hard time with generally is the premise that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, that sometimes one is on the losing side of consensus, and that the thing to do if one is is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I remember the endless disruption around the ramen redirect. I also remember this bizarre incident. Granted, it's pretty old, but it doesn't really inspire confidence that the user should be editing here. Spicy (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would support a WP:CIR block or ban. Like Rosguill, I was wanting to open a discussion after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Yaraana (2014 film) but am currently too busy to put together anything of substance right now. As an RfD regular, I can say with certainty that his contributions there are disruptive and a net negative. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• As I mentioned above, I do not make as many disruptive edits and have learned what is WP:COMMONNAME and to look for the spelling in English language reliable sources and not on fan-made posters. And I will start warning other users one day. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Tavix I am making positive contributions at RfD too. And I have been nominating my own redirects for WP:CSDG7. Neel.arunabh (talk)
• We can now add borderline canvassing attempts (Special:Diff/1066490896) to the list of problematic behaviors. The two comments made in this diff also once again display a poor command of English to the point that it interferes with his ability to make or understand arguments, coupled with rote repetition of common RfD phrases. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's more than borderline, it's blatant canvassing—Neel is pinging users to the discussion that they think will oppose deleting unicole characters, which is biased and partisan. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Normally I would consider the fact that the actual list of editors pinged would almost certainly backfire and produce the opposite of the intended result to be a mitigating factor, but given the overriding CIR concerns, it is perhaps less so in this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Rosguill and Tavix I have removed the pings and I have said to wait for a consensus. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
        • ...which, much like pretty much every other response you've given here, just underscores that you do not actually understand the problems with any of your actions beyond the fact that other editors have taken issue with them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I do understand the problems with my actions. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Neel.arunabh has decided that they don't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a 6 year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. It is not true that I am on a 6 year crusade. After, Talk:I Love NY (2015 film)#Requested move 11 July 2017, I have been convinced that "2015 film" is permissible under Wikipedia article title policies and per WP:NCF. However, in May, I started move-warring over a film title spelling, and that was contested in an RM by Ab207. So, now I am learning about WP:COMMONNAME and my current requested move at Talk:I Love NY (2015 film) is to get it moved to the WP:COMMONNAME without anymore move wars. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, would you prefer me to amend the statement to Neel.arunabh decided that they didn't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a multi year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. It took about half a dozen reverted moves, a block for move waring, the page being admin level move protected due to their disruption and three RM discussions over the course of two years where not a single person agreed with any of the titles they proposed for them to even consider that policy and other editors disagreed with the move.? Do you think that's a fair summary? You also haven't addressed a single one of the other issues people have raised here apart from repeatedly saying "I've learned, I've learned, I wont be disruptive in future". You've had 5 years of talk page warnings, and haven't paid attention to any of them. If you want more examples why did you move Naina (song) to Naina (Arijit Singh song), we have only one article on a song by this name, so by policy the article should be located at the "(song)" disambiguation. Why did you move Daava to Daava (film)? This is the only article on something we have called "Darva" so it should be located at the base title. Why did you draftify Daava and Fareb (1996 film), WP:DRAFTIFY is clear that only newly created articles are eligible for draftification - these articles had existed for years, and the rationale you gave - "no recent sources" - has no basis in any kind of policy. Why did you move Arjun Pandit (1999 film) and Fareb (1996 film) to the date when they were re-released? Policy is that films are disambiguated based on original release date. Even worse the titles you moved them to weren't even the dates that they were re-released, because you were guessing based upon the release date of articles on unreliable sources. It is blatantly obvious that you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing, and almost all of your contributions consist of you making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes. You obviously lack either the competence or maturity to edit here, and a block is needed to prevent other editors having to waste any more time cleaning up after you. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree about amending the statement. The reason why I moved Naina (song) to Naina (Arijit Singh song) was because there are many other songs titles "Naina", bu I appreciate your request at WP:RM/TR. And I will not waste anymore people's time. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • If you don't disagree with the statement I made at WP:RM/TR and agree with moving the article back then why on earth did you contest the move by opening a WP:RM where you endorse reverting your own move, stealing and slightly editing the statement I made [32]? What the Fuck are you doing? Do you understand what requested moves is for? This is a completely inappropriate use of the requested moves process, has yet again resulted in other editors having to run around cleaning up the mess you've made. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Just to self-revert my move. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
        • So the problems here with your editing:
          1. Requested moves is for "Controversial" or "Contested" moves - if I suggest moving a page and you agree there is no need to go through a week long discussion at requested moves
          2. I had already started the process for getting the page moved, there was no reason at all for you to start another process for moving the page. Running multiple processes at once just wastes everyone's time.
          3. You started the requested move after the page had already been moved back to the original title
          4. You copied my statement from the technical requests page and passed it off as your own. This is creepy, a copyright violation and seriously beings into question your competence to edit if you can't express simple thoughts in your own words.
          5. Your unnecessary requested move was picked up by the bot and added to the list of requested moves. The person who did the technical request had to fuck about cleaning up the mess that you made, turning a 30 second job into several minutes of clean-up.

          I said that your editing here consisted of making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes., to which you said that you would avoid wasting people's time. Less than an hour later you were wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes resulting in a mess that other people have had to clean up. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just once, back in 2016, I edited a part of a user's comment. The edit was reverted, and I no longer edit people's comments er WP:ETIQUETTE. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• And please see my message on Ab207's talk page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support block. User clearly does not understand what they're doing wrong and, despite statements to the contrary, seem determined to keep behaving this way. Net-negative to the project, whether it's due to competence or other issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • HandThatFeeds I do understand what I am doing wrong. Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• So, it's funny, I actually didn't get the RfD ping, because Neel misspelled my name Tazmin, and it doesn't send a ping when you correct a name in a message. Instead I found this thread because I'd checked out his talkpage after wondering why I'd seen the same user behaving strangely at two places in two days, as I was the one who declined the RM/TR request. Not knowing the full context, I had been a bit bemused by the notion that a protected-for-move-warring page could be casually moved because one person felt there was a clear correct title. (It did not cross my mind that the move protection, six years ago, might have been because of the same editor.) I was then a bit annoyed by this post-reply edit that made my cross-post from RM/TR to RFPP retroactively ambiguous. Now, when it comes to the set of redirects that I was (meant to be) pinged about, I actually think those are reasonable creations—maybe meriting deletion, I'm not sure, but not CIR-indicative. However, everything else presented here makes me feel like this is one of those situations where it would not be a good use of the project's resources to continue trying to make this editor understand our policies and norms. I have a lot of patience for people who struggle to get some things, if they're willing to listen to advice they're given. That does not seem to be the case here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  It seems that more than enough patience has been expended waiting for this editor to learn from his/her mistakes. It's time to give up on him/her. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• To all those supporting a block. I make at least some edits per week without any CIR issues. That's extremely high for me to learn from my CIR mistakes and so very clearly this is something all admins need. A block is the exact worst thing we can do for users here - our job is to educate people to contribute constructively and we don't do that by blocking the user and making them (if they are lucky) unhelpful users. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  FTR, no, our job is not to endlessly spend volunteer resources trying to teach editors to contribute constructively. At some point we have to move on, and the fact that you would argue this is not helping your case. valereee (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is it possible a p-block from article space would allow this user some more room/time to develop competence? I do see that some of the disruption has occurred in other spaces. valereee (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • CIR doesn't magically disappear with a partial block, it just changes addresses. Article space is the only reason we are here, after all. The rest of these back pages are only to support articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: given that the last ANI thread was about them using AFD to ask for tech support, I've provided numerous diffs of them bludgeoning processes and wasting time at the help desk, two admins have weighed in that their contributions at RFD are disruptive and "a net negative" and that even while this thread was ongoing they've managed to make a mess of moving a page I don't have much confidence that that's a viable solution here. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks, both. Whenever I see a user who seems to be sincerely trying to attain competency, I'd like to figure out a way to let that happen. But, yeah. @Neel.arunabh, indefinite blocks aren't necessarily permanent. If you're blocked you can consider contributing more carefully at some other wikimedia project to see if you can develop the necessary competence and appeal here in a year or so. valereee (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Valereee I am sure that some users can trust me like Tamzin above.
  The last time, when I went to AfD, then wbm1058 suggested that I go to WP:VPT. But by mistake, I went to WP:VPR. This was when I was in the previous ANI thread. Then, after a couple of talk page discussions, I finally went to WP:VPT. So, wbm1058 can trust me to participate in the correct place.
  Talk:The Weeknd/Archive 2#Layout, Back in February 2021, I was making edits to The Weeknd and Osh33m was busy reverting Walter Görlitz's and my edits to their own preferred version. Then, Osh33m was blocked for edit-warring. Osh33m finally brought the sections back to my contribution. So, Osh33m can also trust me on Wikipedia. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I... If your reading of my comment is that I trust you, then I think that says more about competence issues than anything else here. And that sounds really mean but I don't know how else to put it. Neel, I know this isn't a pleasant position to be in, but I think sometimes a person reaches a point where they just have to accept that what they want from Wikipedia and what Wikipedia wants from them are not going to match up. You've had six years and 4,000 edits to learn the basics, and still haven't... Maybe this just isn't the right hobby for you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin I have learned the basics. Community editing is definitely the right hobby for me. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support block; I was particularly convinced by MrOllie noting that they did not learn from their mistake of using Wikipedia as Facebook tech support.

I suspect that English is not their first language; it may be beneficial for them to edit on their native language Wikipedia before appealing here, as the language barrier may be why they have struggled to gain competence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal I totally disagree with you. I know English more than any other language. And I will make more useful contributions on English language sites. This is not just on Wikipedia or any sister site. See my StackExchange profile. Even on StackExchange, I ask useful questions. Your statement above I suspect that English is not their first language is a violation of WP:PA. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting this warning that they just placed on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And suddenly I find myself feeling less bad about supporting a ban here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh: your StackExchange history is pretty bad too. For example, the December 16 2021 question https://spanish.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4442/my-recent-question, where you were counseled for plagiarism in asking your question. If you think that is evidence of asking useful questions, I suggest you carefully reread what people wrote to you in StackExchange. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

rsjaffe Only one instance, I was counseled for plagiarism. But I have asked some useful questions at https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/14005/why-do-south-asians-often-use-lakhs-and-crores-instead-of-millions-what-i and many others. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that they have now removed their warning, and the three responses that were made to it, which does seem to reinforce suggestions that they don't understand guidelines like WP:TPO. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal I have struck my warning and have restored the responses. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: They've been doing the same thing in this conversation, e.g. this edit [33] where they moved one of their comments and added a fake timestamp to make it look like it was said in reply to the comments added after it. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: No, I suspect that English is not their first language is not a personal attack, quite the opposite. Lots of people here (including myself) have first languages other than Engish, and that is not a negative characteristic. When an editor clearly has difficulties understanding how things work at English Wikipedia, one possible reason is that their command of English isn't quite strong enough; suggesting that your problematic edits might be caused by your misunderstanding guidelines and instructions because English is a second language for you is in fact assuming that you edit in good faith. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And now they are proceeding to spam WP:RFD with poorly thought out copy paste votes, including claiming that two redirects created in 2010 and 2009 would fall under WP:R3, a criteria that only applies to recently created redirects (emphasis is in original policy) [34] [35]. Upon being called out on this they have misleadingly edited their original vote [36]. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made a helpful vote here. I never copy and paste votes. Statements like "Delete per nom" are universal statements used regularly by deletion discussion participants. If I nominate a page for deletion, I would vote "Delete as nominator". Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And I am making more helpful votes here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: "per nom" is not a useful vote. In fact it is listed in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as an example of the exact kind of useless pile on voting that doesn't add anything to the discussion - WP:PERNOM. If you were putting time and effort into writing your votes why on earth did you vote Keep per Tamzin, Walter Görlitz, and Walter Görlitz [37] Did you not notice that you mentioned the same person twice? Why did you propose to delete redirects under a speedy deletion criteria that obviously did not apply? Why did you edit your comment in a misleading way that made other comments meaningless? You were literally just telling Tavix that you understand everything now, your competence issues are solved and that you'll stop being disruptive, then you instantly go and start disrupting RFD with more incompetent editing. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to compete better at RfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Compete? This ain't a competition! You would think given your active disruption that you would stop digging yourself a deeper hole, but you just...keep...digging. School 25 is a perfect example of that: you say that there is no school with that name, but that is demonstrably false with a very basic search. Your next contribution, the Political conflict RfD is also quite the opposite of helpful. If you had read the discussion that took place, or clicked the link you placed, it would tell you that the section you want the redirect retargeted to no longer exists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am trying hard with RfD statements. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you've stealth-edited your Political conflict !vote after Tavix' comment above, as well as thre of the !votes 192 took issue with [38] [39] [40], after I complained above about you doing that at WP:RFPP/D. (I actually think "per nom" is a forgivable misunderstanding of a rather subtle XfD norm that has more to do with who's !voting and when they !vote than about what's said... But the constant stealth edits are another sign of just not getting it.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

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

• As I said above, I have some sympathy for Neel—although less so since the absurd warning to BilledMammal—but think it would be best if he found another hobby; and if he can't see that, a ban is the only way to compel it. I say "find another hobby" because, yes, indefinite ≠ infinite, but when issues like this persist for 6 years, it's unlikely to be the sort of case where a few years away from the wiki is all someone needs in order to return as a constructive editor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support User was given chances for many years WP:CIR. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support and honestly if I'd come across this discussion as an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked already based on the discussion above the formal proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the huge amount of disruption and history of questionable edits detailed above. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support ~ i clicked many (not all, 'tis true) of the links above; on the basis of what i have seen there and, most especially, Neel.arunabh's behaviour in this very ANI section, i'm afraid that the English WP is not currently the place for them. There are lots of other places to practise the community editing desired and, who knows, maybe one day the required competence will be achieved and demonstrable and we can say, "Welcome back!". Till then, sorry. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: It's regrettable, and certainly I've seen far more combative behaviors at ANI than Neel.arunabh's, but what I was thinking earlier was that Neel.arunabh could use a mentor. And then I thought, wait, who's going to take on THAT hot mess? Me? Oh dear me no. Sooner or later, people need to learn how to edit here, where to find the rules, endeavor to follow the rules, and not make more work for other editors than their contributions are worth. Hundreds of thousands of editors manage not to be those hot messes, and never find themselves at ANI. (Never mind the extremely thin skin it takes to interpret "I suspect English is not his first language" as a PA, and to drop a Level 4 warning for it.) Six years is far more time than we should have had to wait. Ravenswing 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Even the "contrary" comment below shows a lack of understanding of the problems. Frankly, I do not care if an editor posts a question about Facebook at the Teahouse. That forum can handle it because it is designed for newbie questions. I'm also not sure how relevant the "I have never used talk pages as a forum" comment is. As far as I can tell, no one is accusing Neel of doing that? On the other hand, there are so many issues that are of substance that have not even begun to be addressed: misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, canvassing, bludgeoning discussions, filing excessive and/or irrelevant XfDs and RMs, ignorance of how consensus works, an inability to drop the stick, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tavix I do understand sources. I do not edit war anymore. I will not canvass random people. I will not bludgeon anymore discussions. I will propose only relevant XfDs and RMs. I know how consensus works. I can drop the stick. See my latest correction I made in Philosophy. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In that edit you managed to completely break the formatting of the bottom half of the article because you moved the "Columns start" template to be after the "columns end" template. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the "outline of philosophy" article isn't really about the history of philosophy, that link would be better placed in the "see also" section. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Which, as it turns out, is where it was before you started editing [41]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally per the documentation at Template:Portal#Location Portal links are supposed to be placed at the top of the "see also" section, not the external links section, so it was right before you moved it. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I'd seen this thread earlier, and assumed that Neel.arunabh was a young, inexperienced contributor who needed time to learn how everything works around here. Having now seen that they have been editing since 2015 (my fault for not reading more carefully earlier) it is obvious that isn't the case, and that instead we are looking at someone who may have good intentions, but simply lacks the necessary skills to contribute in a positive manner. They've been given more than enough time to show evidence that they are capable of learning, and failed to do so. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• oppose somewhat because of Tamzin's comment above. I say we give rope to Neel.arunabh. I suggest a 30 days block, with a welcome note(s) containing links to all the policies/guidelines. That would give them plenty of time to familiarise themselves with guidelines. But if they do something after 30 days, it should be an indeff block without any discussion. Also, I took that Naina article to AfD. You guys were having quite a fuss over a non-notable article. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: I don't want to seem rude, but from what you've said above about welcomes and helpful links, you seem to believe that Neel.arunabh is new here? They've been here for 6 years and made several thousand edits, been blocked previously, given endless amounts of advice and even engaged in sockpuppetry. If you still think that WP:ROPE applies, I am open to your views on why that would be the case. Mako001 (C)  (T)  05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Neel.arunabh clearly lacks the required competence, and if they haven't gained it after all thee years, they ain't going to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS The thing that really took the biscuit for me was Neel.arunabh's comment[42] here at ANI I am trying to compete better at RfD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • BrownHairedGirl I surely will gain competence. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Neel.arunabh: on the contrary, the fact is that after six and half here years you wrote that utter nonsense while you know you are under scrutiny. If after all that time, you still have not grasped that XFD is not a competition, then you are learning far too slowly to ever gain sufficient competence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep watching every contribution I make. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: This has gone too long. At this point, even from the RfDs yesterday, it's quite clear, that we all must move on. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 07:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Contrary

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

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

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

If you cannot read and understand that prominent and simple introduction, then you cannot possibly be anywhere near the level of competence required to edit an encyclopedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I will remember that the TeaHouse is "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If you had any trace of the skill required to productively edit an encyclopedia, then you would have been able to read and understand that simple notice first time, unaided. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Neel.arunabh posted at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia bots. GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having trampled so many of Wikipedia's fair fields, Neel has just asked at Teahouse how to create a bot. Please, please, put an end to the horror that is Neel. David notMD (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Talk page harassment

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

IP has been blocked and talk has been semi-protected. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have another IP harassing me through edit summaries, 119.111.181.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin please revdel this edit summary? wizzito | say hello! 11:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Aliffaizul13

Aliffaizul13 (talk · contribs)

Recently blocked for adding unsourced content to BLPs - now back doing the same. Never uses edit summaries, never response to talk page posts, and from a quick glance through contribs never uses references... GiantSnowman 07:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Aliffaizul13#Indefinite block. El_C 11:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please check my work on a revdel

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

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

Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Gaming behavior at 3RR

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

---

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

• What. You were annotating Kwamikagami's own notes, in their text; that's not OK. As for aspersions--you are calling them a "gamester". Kwamikagami, you like Roblox or Shellshockers? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You mean like this? Oh, but wait, that's them. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It's comment Inception EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you mean or how it somehow incriminates the other editor--I do get the sarcasm! Anyway, I see you are not disputing my comment about the allegedly unwarranted removing of comments. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That comment was put in the middle of the report section, above the Comments: line. Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Skyerise I'm not sure what you're referring to but Drmies seems to be referring to [43] which is in the middle of Kwamikagami's signed comment, a signed comment which inside the comment section (i.e. below the comments line), and completely inappropriate. Please don't do that again. If you need to to address or dispute something Kwamikagami said, then please add it below their signed comment, like everyone else does, not in the middle. You can use quotations, descriptions whatever to make it clear what you're referring to as needed. The fact that Kwamikagami initially replied to the comment you added in the middle of their signed comment also in the middle (of their own, not your signed comment) doesn't excuse your behaviour since it's always confusing when people create problems like you did. Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I apparently pasted the wrong diff. Here is where he added a comment inside the report section, the same thing he complained about me doing. [44]. Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
            • After you said it was okay to post responses inside each other's comments, I posted one (clearly marked) inside yours. So you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for acting the way you did and then said we should? No aspersions here, but I do find your behaviour amazing. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:LouisaCatherineAdams ongoing WP:BLP issues

User:LouisaCatherineAdams. WP:BLP violations and other edits putting statements into articles that are not supported by the refs given. As in: Special:Diff/1066244586 and Special:Diff/1066809492. Editor has been blocked before. - Special-T (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Special-T: IMO, the next block should be indefinite, reviewing the edits that this editor has made, regardless of any good edits. This user has been blocked two times and the third?– Indefinite. Severestorm28 22:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Between the blocks and the number of different editors telling them to slow down, use WP:RS etc., an indef is warranted and I've done so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a sock account. Now tagged and a couple of sleepers blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kbrose

The editor User:Kbrose is edit warring and showing aggressive displays of wp:own over the Original North American area codes page, claims "I wrote the whole article to begin with". They have been repeatedly adding a factually inaccurate edit which was reverted numerous times by more than one editor. They refuse to use the talk page on the issue despite countless requests. Refused other editors attempts to communicate through editors talk page. A proposal to have a third party review was also refused and the conversation deleted by kbrose. This is a clear example of edit warring, article ownership, and general aggressive/rude treatment of other editors. When I went to report them for their confrontational edits and refusal to use talk page, I was mysteriously reported for my reverts of their bold edits. The page was then semi protected and the User:Kbrose immediately returned to edit warring. I'm not sure if this suspicious and timely semi-protect was a simple case of WP:IPHUMAN, or if this is WP:TAGTEAM behaviour.

1. [45] 16:42, 11 January 2022
2. [46] 17:43, 14 January 2022
3. [47] 15:56, 17 January 2022
4. [48] 17:54, 17 January 2022
5. [49] 19:17, 19 January 2022
6. [50] 23:48, 19 January 2022

As you can see above User:Kbrose bold edit was reverted and they continuously reinstated it, refused to use the talk page, refused a third party review, acted in a hostile manner towards other editors, and claimed ownership of the article. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

All that needs to be pointed out is that this is just retaliatory behavior based on the previous rejections of the user's unfounded accusations. This all started when I reverted his modification on the page that was contradictory (impossible) in itself at DIFF. Not being able to swallow that and correct his edit, he just latched onto another editor's concern, and started reverting wholesale new content I added later, which is duly referenced and well developed. He never cited specific concerns (or anything else) on the talk page, as noted by the reviewing administrator. Then the other user fell into the same habit of wholesale reverting content that had nothing to do with the original concern and has since been discussed on the talk page. kbrose (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is wrong but you. Even the administrator who requested that you revert your edits yet you still refuse. Such a blatant disregard for wikipedia policies, respect of follow editors, and opposition to wikipedia administrators. It is baffling why there is such a reluctancy to discuss the proposed bold edits and come to a consensus. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You get respect when you do respectful things. You don't demand it. Writing good articles can generate that. You have not even once engaged and raised any kind of specific concern about the article. You made a change once, that was objectively wrong, impossible, and you couldn't stand being reverted. The same happened on other of the few articles you ever worked on in WP under this IP address, and you were warned about it by admins on your talk page. You have only obstructed here. Not a single contribution, not a single objection, not a single issue discussed on the talk page. Nada. Nothing but accusations. Don't lecture others. You have probably edited previously with other IP addresses, what happened? kbrose (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. You're doing a lot of projecting here. Please refrain from personal attacks here as you are now also doing on the articles page. It won't help your case and proves my point of your very uncivil behaviour. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kbrose

The editor User:Kbrose is edit warring and showing aggressive displays of wp:own over the Original North American area codes page, claims "I wrote the whole article to begin with". They have been repeatedly adding a factually inaccurate edit which was reverted numerous times by more than one editor. They refuse to use the talk page on the issue despite countless requests. Refused other editors attempts to communicate through editors talk page. A proposal to have a third party review was also refused and the conversation deleted by kbrose. This is a clear example of edit warring, article ownership, and general aggressive/rude treatment of other editors. When I went to report them for their confrontational edits and refusal to use talk page, I was mysteriously reported for my reverts of their bold edits. The page was then semi protected and the User:Kbrose immediately returned to edit warring. I'm not sure if this suspicious and timely semi-protect was a simple case of WP:IPHUMAN, or if this is WP:TAGTEAM behaviour.

1. [51] 16:42, 11 January 2022
2. [52] 17:43, 14 January 2022
3. [53] 15:56, 17 January 2022
4. [54] 17:54, 17 January 2022
5. [55] 19:17, 19 January 2022
6. [56] 23:48, 19 January 2022

As you can see above User:Kbrose bold edit was reverted and they continuously reinstated it, refused to use the talk page, refused a third party review, acted in a hostile manner towards other editors, and claimed ownership of the article. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

All that needs to be pointed out is that this is just retaliatory behavior based on the previous rejections of the user's unfounded accusations. This all started when I reverted his modification on the page that was contradictory (impossible) in itself at DIFF. Not being able to swallow that and correct his edit, he just latched onto another editor's concern, and started reverting wholesale new content I added later, which is duly referenced and well developed. He never cited specific concerns (or anything else) on the talk page, as noted by the reviewing administrator. Then the other user fell into the same habit of wholesale reverting content that had nothing to do with the original concern and has since been discussed on the talk page. kbrose (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is wrong but you. Even the administrator who requested that you revert your edits yet you still refuse. Such a blatant disregard for wikipedia policies, respect of follow editors, and opposition to wikipedia administrators. It is baffling why there is such a reluctancy to discuss the proposed bold edits and come to a consensus. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You get respect when you do respectful things. You don't demand it. Writing good articles can generate that. You have not even once engaged and raised any kind of specific concern about the article. You made a change once, that was objectively wrong, impossible, and you couldn't stand being reverted. The same happened on other of the few articles you ever worked on in WP under this IP address, and you were warned about it by admins on your talk page. You have only obstructed here. Not a single contribution, not a single objection, not a single issue discussed on the talk page. Nada. Nothing but accusations. Don't lecture others. You have probably edited previously with other IP addresses, what happened? kbrose (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. You're doing a lot of projecting here. Please refrain from personal attacks here as you are now also doing on the articles page. It won't help your case and proves my point of your very uncivil behaviour. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor Taolabomay

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

This user is attempting to force text into Vietnamese language while ignoring attempts to direct him/her to the relevant discussion on the talk page. Could someone have a word? Kanguole 15:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor name's with diacritics is "tao là bố mày". My suggestion is to redirect him to Vietnamese Wikipedia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Taolabomay was blocked from viwiki last June because of the user name.[57] In any case, this editor does not respond to any communication. It is very frustrating. Kanguole 08:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Anonymxx00 persistently uploading copyright materials

Anonymxx00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been persistenly uploading copyright materials while falsely claiming as licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 or 4.0 licensing and removing warnings from talk page twice[58][59], which I assumed user has read it and understood it. User also was previously blocked on Commons for 1 week (January 12–19) for doing the same stuff as seen in this report. However, I does seem like User couldn't be bothered and has continue the same behavior but this time on English Wikipedia with File:Kim Hyun-soo.png and File:Park Hyung-sik.png which was uploaded today with the same issues of falsely claiming as licensed under CC 3.0. I believe actions such 1 week block should be taken against this user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with copying information from French and Quebecois animated series on French Wikipedia.

For some who don't know, I copied information about the original French voice cast that gave life to the characters of such a French or Canadian Quebecois series on the French Wikipedia and pasted them here, I've had more or less several incidents of two users because I received more than four warnings that I allegedly removed the blank content of some articles that I have recently edited if my edits are constructive and I surely left three edit summaries reasons for correctly adding the cast information in infoboxes, so no I know, suddenly two users, including a bot, reverted all my edits without leaving edit summaries. See: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The translation to french, makes it difficult for the project's english-only readers to understand. This being english-language Wikipedia, it's like many of our readers are english-only readers. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You see, the user just did it, my edit was just reverted on Mark Ronson's article having reported through the protection page requests saying in the summary here non-constructive imagine. The same thing happened with Manuel Tadros, he or she reverted my edit just before I added the categories below the section. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@152.0.138.36: your edits are very difficult to parse, so I'm going to respond to a couple of the several edits that I read. In your first example, you have not just copied information about the original French voice cast as you said. In fact, you deleted the entire Italian and English cast and replaced it with only the French cast. That is presumably why ClueBotNG, which is an automated process, automatically flagged your edit as suspected "vandalism". Moving on to your Mark Ronson example... my assumption is that there is something weird going on with whatever device you are using to edit Wikipedia. The Wikimedia software has generated a nearly incomprehensible diff that took me a few minutes to visually process. You appear to have done three things:

1. Changed the subject's (Ronson's) nationality information from "English-American" to merely "British," which does not comply with Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons.
2. Reordered some of the categories, for some reason. It looks like you alphabetized some of them, but at least one was moved out of the correct order and into an incorrect order by your edit, so I don't understand the point of this action.
3. Modified the subject's occupational information from "DJ, songwriter, record producer, and record executive" to merely "musician" in the short description block for the article. In the lead sentence, you also removed "singer" from the list of occupations. This is an unwarranted correction and requires discussion.

In all cases, your edits are causing disruption from multiple angles. Even if this is not intentional, you must take great care not to continue to degrade the quality of articles with the changes that you make. Please consider your subsequent edits more carefully and try to start off with making extremely simple changes one revision at a time, rather than large changes that affect markup and drastically change the meaning of the text. If you need assistance with ensuring that your edits are helpful, you will be welcomed at the WP:Teahouse, and you can additionally ask technical questions at the WP:Help desk. Best of luck. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR and Vitopavlovivit

• Vitopavlovivit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have some concerns about competency with regards to Vitopavlovivit's edits, namely on List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. They have repeatedly made edits that broke the formatting for tables used in the article:

• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]

No attempt has been made to learn about proper table formatting. I have also noticed some poor grammar within the user's talk page messages, such as not using apostrophes in words like "don't", as well as some odd messages like "have you watched it last night" and "i edited for reliable source and go watch cartoon network commercials from 10-2-1992 on youtube". Is a block in order? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at this user's talkpage I don't see much chance of improvement here. Blocked, hard to believe it took this long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As much as I want to argue WP:BITE in support of our more inexperienced users, this sadly looks like a good block. Four years of editing, not a single reply on their own talk page, and I can't find a single contribution that survived to the current revision on any article. My only concern is that gross incompetence strikes me as unnecessarily uncivil, The Blade of the Northern Lights. We're here to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, but we don't need to insult people to accomplish those aims. It is surely upsetting enough just to be blocked without also being told that you've exhibited gross incompetence. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Riverside High School Jacksonville FL Wiki Site Information Errors

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

---

Riverside High School's information is wrong. This high school was renamed last year and has absolutely NO affiliation with its former name (Robert E. Lee High School, alumni, awards/accolades) whatsoever. I ask for assistance to have these articles removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellbucket (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is a bizarre request. Riverside High School is Robert E. Lee High School; they are the same institution, the only thing that changed is the name. The alumni of Robert E. Lee High School are alumni of Riverside High School, the sports team from Robert E. Lee High School is the sports team from Riverside High School. It makes no sense to remove these details simply because the school's name changed. Mlb96 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Did they tear the building down and construct a new one? No, it seems. All they did was rename it. No doubt the great majority of alumni still identify with the prior name (in the same way that even though the town in which I grew up left the regional district nearly 20 years ago, and the building in which I attended HS has been torn down, I remain an alum of Silver Lake RHS), but that's neither here nor there. It's completely and unjustifiably revisionist to act as if the school never had been called anything else ... never mind that this is a content dispute having nothing to do with ANI. It should be resolved on the article's talk page, and I suggest that Bellbucket follow the advice other editors have given and take the opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. Ravenswing 13:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

help

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

---

Extended content

i do not know if this is the right place to post this here but someone made the wikitable election results colours more bleak, the former version was better because it more clear to distinguish beetween the notices colours and text thickness (for example: extra parliamentary and opposion colours and text thickness) can someone please change back to how it was before, thanks. how the colours were before (also notice the text thickness) how the colours are now (also notice the text thickness) Gooduserdude (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Gooduserdude: The article's talk page, the Help desk or the Teahouse would be better places to ask. What is the article name? –FlyingAce✈hello 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Sweden Democrats (election results section) but it is the same thing on all articles Gooduserdude (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) it is not specifically about an article but about about wiki templates Gooduserdude (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Gooduserdude: Then discuss the issue on the talk page of {{eliminated}}. Per the note at the top of this page "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". A table changing colour in an article is neither an urgent issue or a behavioural problem so it does not belong here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Gooduserdude: I see what you mean now. These changes are being discussed at Template talk:Table cell templates#Color change in "Nominated"; you may want to join the conversation there. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

IP editor disruptively adding trivial casting information to film articles

160.2.211.63 (talk · contribs) has been disruptively adding trivial casting information to multiple film articles since at least mid-October of last year, when I first notified them[75] of my concerns regarding their edits, many of which are as vague as "X was considered for the role of Y." While the IP does provide sources, a discussion at WikiProject Film concluded that such edits generally weren't constructive. The IP did not contribute to that discussion and has continued on blissfully unaware, despite further notices left at their Talk page.[76] [77] [78] [79]. As the IP is not communicating regarding edits that have been found to be troublesome, despite multiple warnings, I would ask that they be blocked until they engage with the community.

Recent examples of such edits: [80] [81] [82] [83].

It should perhaps be noted that most if not all of their edits are mobile web edits, which raises the frustrating possibility that they're not even aware that there are messages at their Talk page. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nunuxxx copyright violation

The following text added by Nunuxxx (talk · contribs · count) to Armenia–Georgia relations [84] is taken word-for-word from pages 185 and 186 of "Armenia: Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State" by Samuel Weems, an infamous genocide denier, historical negationist, and criminal:

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

Links to the pages [85][86]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That extract is from Richard G. Hovannisian's “The Republic of Armenia Volume II: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920”, in the second paragraph of page 151, as was cited in the Armenia-Georgia relations article. I'd like to add that if you were concerned about a copyright violation, you could have reached out to me directly instead of escalating to ANI (which is a last-resort avenue). In any case, I did not read about or hear of Samuel Weems or his book before. I believe what may have occurred is that Weems copied the extract from Hovannisian's book to validate his own publication. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Nunuxxx, could you expand on this a bit, I don't seem to understand: are you saying that this has been copied verbatim from a source, just not the source that ZaniGiovanni thought it had? Is there any reason why that is not WP:COPYVIO? (Also, are those curly apostrophes?!?) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Essentially yes, I mistakenly forgot to place the extract in a quote block as I had intended, however, I did remember to cite the source of the extract so as to indicate its origin. I will correct this shortly, or paraphrase it, whichever is more suitable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Nunuxxx: this doesn't seem like a reliable source, shouldn't it just be removed? Levivich 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  As someone who has studied the subject in great depth, I can attest to the fact that Richard G. Hovannisian is considered in English academia the foremost expert on the First Republic of Armenia which is reflected by the detailed 4 volume series on its existence which he has published through the University of California press. He is acknowledged and cited by numerous authors, Armenian and Azerbaijani alike for his reliable and thorough academic contributions to the subject, therefore, I believe his publications can with certainty be considered as reliable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, my mistake, I misread and thought you were quoting Weems not Hovannisian. Levivich 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  I find it hard to credit the idea that you could have mistakenly forgotten to put text like that in a quote block. This isn't just about missing some tags: when you are going to quote someone, you have to write attribution stuff around it (e.g. "Armenian American historian Richard G. Hovannisian, writing in his history on the period The Republic of Armenia (Volume II), wrote..."). You didn't bother with any of that, you just presented it as your own words, and put it inappropriately into Wikipedia's voice. That's completely inappropriate on several levels: putting the obvious COPYVIO issues to one side, historians don't write encyclopedically, the are often making an argument and writing persuasively. Their views are their own, whereas we have to attempt to represent scholarly consensus. I don't have a view on whether the source is unreliable, as Levivich suggests, but certainly inserting without attribution as you did is massively inappropriate, and it makes me worried about whether your other contributions need to be checked over. Have you ever added text from a historical work in a similar manner before? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have used Hovannisian's work in other articles, yes. After familiarising myself with WP:COPYVIO, I deleted one paragraph that I used from the source here. I also created this article with that source and I can nominate it for deletion for COPYVIO or you could delete it yourself. I'm a relatively new editor, I only recently became active on Wikipedia some months ago starting with adding statistical data into tables, so I'm still rather inexperienced in regards to copyright policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to pass it off as my own, that was not at all my intention and I will certainly try to be more careful in future to ensure my edits are made in accordance with WP:COPYVIO and WP:MOS. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Did you copy any content from the source into the article? Our automated copyvio detection tools don't pick up anything on that article, but they are not foolproof - if the stuff comes from an offline source like a hardcopy book, or it's an online source that the tool can't access, the copyvio won't be detected. If it only contains a few sentences that were copied, they could be removed/rewritten, then I could revdel the old versions. If most of the text of the article has been copied from the book, it would be simpler just to delete the article and start again from scratch.

  Copyright is a complex, but important part of editing here. You can start by read WP:COPYRIGHT, the overarching policy, then following the links in there to find out more. But to understand it in a nutshell, take this on board: you must not copy text from any source. Ideally, you shouldn't be basing content off of a single source - you should try to collect two or three sources covering the material you want to write about, then try to summarise what they each have to say in your own words. Occasionally, there will be particular phrases that are almost impossible to express in different words - that's OK, but keep it to an absolute minimum. If you get the the point that you have copied a whole sentence, you have gone much too far. Changing the odd word here and there is known as WP:Close paraphrasing, and it's also not permissible - if your sentence presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, just using the occasional synonym to make them different, then it is too close to the original. Even in cases where the source is out of copyright, or in the public domain, there are tags that you need to apply to provide attribution if you copy from it in order to be compliant with our policy here. Oh, and in case you were thinking about copying content from one article to another: WP:CWW. Even if you wrote the original text yourself, you need to provide attribution when copying it into a new article.

  Going further than that, there are issues with the text quoted above which make in unsuitable for an article here. One group of people's suffering dwarfing that of another group of people: that's a subjective judgment, whcih can be mentioned, but the person who wrote that needs to be attributed; Wikipedia doesn't make judgments of that sort in its own voice. The rest of it should have been summarised into a sentence or two about people being sold into servitude and prostitution in order to survive - to fit with our house style, it shouldn't be written as emotively as it currently is. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I did copy and cite some paragraphs (with minor adjustments to grammar and geographical terms) in that article, however, it's from an offline PDF so it may not have been detected. Alternatively, perhaps the article could be moved to a "draft" and rewritten to conform to WP, or I can rewrite it from my sandbox, whichever you think is more appropriate. Thank you for explaining the policy in-detail, I will definitely acquaint myself with WP:COPYRIGHT to make my edits more original, and also more objective in accordance to WP:NPOV, as I understand the purpose is to present an objective collection of information and facts and let the reader form their own conclusion. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for being frank about that. I've deleted the page, and its associated talk page, as a copyright infringement - copyright violations aren't permitted anywhere, including in draft space or user space I'm afraid. If you are going to copy content from a source, you need to do that offline on your own device, and ensure that it is re-written in your own words before uploading here. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging Moneytrees, as an admin with more familiarity with copyvio issues than I have - if you could skim through the thread above, and comment on whether you think any further investigation/action is required, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Girth Summit You asked if they copy-pasted text to other articles. Not sure if these violate COPYVIO, but here: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ZaniGiovanni I believe those are acceptable block quotes. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Wanted to also add that it's interesting how Nunuxxx, being a self-proclaimed person who studied the subject in great depth, misrepresents historian and their quotes, ignoring conclusions in the book and passages he cites, just to defend his tendentious edit. Please see reply and explanation regarding that edit here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit I've done some spot checking now and I don't see anything that hasn't now been removed, although I cannot access the main source copied from. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're slightly mistaken on one point; WP:NOATT says If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary, so if they wrote the original text and it has not been altered by other editors, copying without attribution is permissible. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I may some changes to the article on Samuel Weems where the material from the obit tracks with the source content, though probably in an acceptable manner. That biography raises some neutrality concerns and makes me wonder if the book mentioned at the start of this thread is actually a RS for use on WP for anything but Weems' own views. I wondered about a talk page-discussion, but figure there are few eyes on that page. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Cltjames

I reported problems with citations made by User:Cltjames and their response was to delete the report without comment. This is the first interaction we have had. Given the scale of the problem, it took a fair amount of bot programming to clean up - it impacted nearly a thousand articles all to the same commercial website https://debretts.com/ which is not an appropriate URL for a {{cite book}} dated 1921 with a page number, much less double loading an Internet Archive book into the archive-url field, or using the quote field for the publisher name (whew). It is part of a pattern of citation oddities, some worse than others, such as embedding a google book template inside a cite book template for two different books. I'm happy to work with User:Cltjames to educate about citations, if that's the problem, but the deletion of the user page post leaves no option but to ask for help to reach them. -- GreenC 06:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Cordial discussions have resumed so I am withdrawing this as an open issue. -- GreenC 22:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Racialist slurs at Ainu people

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

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

References

Vamlos (talk · contribs) editing habits and focus on race and Asia looks awfully like that of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. His 30,000 byte addition to Talk:Interracial marriage in September 2020 is truly something to behold. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Without comment on the DE/NOTHERE aspect, noting that Dreamy Jazz found Vamlos  Unrelated to WCF at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive § 22 December 2021. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is a clear, uncomfortable focus on racial purity in Valmos's editing, as can be seen in this recent edit they made to Orang Asil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Such a fascination with race and purity, expressed in these and other edits, bespeaks a basic mindset that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. I have blocked per NOTHERE. Perhaps the user is unrelated to previous race-obsessed editors, perhaps not. At the very least we can say that a talk page full of warnings for all kinds of disruption (lack of proper edit summaries, unverified edits, poor writing, racist language in article space) have not helped. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I applied revdel to the edit summary as well. The Utari (the Ainu name for themselves, it does tell you something that Ainu is written in katakana...) are still viciously discriminated against, any disruption there needs to be tamped down fast. I won't handle the unblock request, since I know I'm too close to that subject to be objective about it (hell, I wrote a lot of the article on inau and I play the mukkuri), but to me it at least looks to be reasonably sincere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I just don't see how someone with such an archaic, 19th century scientific racism-esque view of race and ethnicity can ever appropriately edit anything related to ethnic groups, nevermind just the Ainu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor DilploCult and Paolo Petrocelli

DiploCult (talk · contribs) This editor contacted me via email sent through WP. This in an effort to get me to make Paolo Petrocelli back into an article. It is currently a redirect per this AFD[92]. There was nothing wrong with the email, it was a plea, providing many sources,in order to prove Diplocult's notability. Yes, in the email Diplocult admitted being Petrocelli.

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

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

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

• I received the same email via WP. I have no idea why he contacted me. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• My God, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? The relentless self-promotion is absolutely nauseating. See https://www.paolopetrocelli.com/ (or any number of other websites endlessly repeating that Paolo Petrocelli, PhD-EMBA-FRSA, is a senior cultural manager driven by the belief that culture, arts and education are a major force for growth, development and change globally. A passionate, innovative and dynamic manager with an extensive experience in leadership positions in a variety of organizational settings, he is an international relations and global cultural affairs expert and so on and so forth). EEng 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I haven't been able to determine whether FRSA is the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Free Radical Scavenging Activity, or the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association.
• I was also contacted on 14 January, and the most annoying thing was the flattery towards me written in the e-mail. At this point, it is possible that every Italian who contributes here has received an email from him. Alex2006 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not Italian! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not that there's anything wrong with that. EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was not contacted! EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  You're not worthy. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have also received the same email with accompanying flattery. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that for the sake of transparency, I will only discuss the issues he raised in the email on his talk page and left it to him to initiate the discussion there. Note that he appears to have a second account Musicdiplomacy (talk · contribs). See here. Of interest also is Draft:Stauffer Center for Strings, a new conservatory of which Mr. Petrocelli is the director. The draft has been created by a paid editor, who after being challenged subsequently disclosed this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • DiploCult replied[93] to you at his talk page. I saw Musicdiplomacy too but didn't investigate too deeply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, I noticed. I have since left him some advice there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Voceditenore: DiploCult is Paolo Petrocelli, They admitted so at the very beginning of their email to me. So WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI should apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
        • @WilliamJE: Yes I know who he is, he said so in his email to me and on-wiki. He also knows that I know. That's why I told him that if he tries to write a draft, he must declare his conflict of interest. Ditto adding to EMMA for Peace. He's already been warned multiple times by others about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All of that is implicit in my advice to him. But I'll add a link to that guideline in my message just in case. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

          Maybe the Cato the Elder anecdote will sink in. EEng 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

          • I too received the same e-mail.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling on Talk:Julian_Assange

Talk:Julian_Assange#RfC: Should Assange's involvement in the release of unredacted cables in Cablegate be included? is an RfC I raised but abandoned rapidly. It has been bad enough in previous discussions but never so blatant. What can be done if the talk page of an article degenerates to that extent? NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Operation Samsonite.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A short but good example of the sort of stuff there stopping progress. NadVolum (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like the general level of incivility, assumptions if bad faith, and snipping looked at as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Reaver55

The user Reaver55 has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. They are quick to assume bad faith and seem to be generally uncivil with most people they engage with. They make generous use of "you" when addressing the actions of editors, and otherwise try to personally engage in one form or another with the editors they're taking issue with (as can be seen here and elsewhere). They are drawn towards controversial subjects and use talk pages as a means of airing their own rants related to the subjects. (Just check their contribs to see.) They have disruptively edited their own talk page as well, which is currently almost entirely struck through (and many topics have been deleted from the page, including notices of discretionary sanctions). I could go on but I don't care to. Mewnst (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You "don't care to go" on yet you made this report, this just seems out spite and anger that your edits are being removed for being irrelevant to the topic Cracker (term). I could say the same thing for your own editing history and you even have a notice for "Transgenderism" which is a controversial topic which you were corrected on due to Transgender being the correct term versus Transgenderism, not to mention you have a habit of NOT using the talk page and forcing blanks like you did with the bored apes yacht club article which you were given a notice about, The Notices are old and I could of deleted them but I prefer to keep it? Is there something wrong with that? Regarding my opinion(s) I was hoping to bring further clarification on why Chadwick Seagraves was important to include so I did some research outside of wikipedia since theres no information on him here which I was why I specified it was my opinion, just like it was their opinion that that paragraph was relevant so to keep the article as it was BEFORE the editing by Mewnst and encouraged Mewnst via the edit summary to use the talk page, they then decided to blank the entire story, which I then wrote a reminder to use the talk page, I never put that story there I just kept it how it was before the disruptive edits by Mewnst without using the talk pages to discuss its relevancy to the article about the term. Cracker I could go on but I don't care to.Reaver55 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not going to take a side in this particular content dispute, but Reaver calling other editors "biased" is concerning. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Again who are you, are you relating to ANY of these incidents/pages about this discussion? Its the same situation as Sly. Another commentary from an editor which seems to me adding further to the "dog pile" to put me in a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reaver55 wasn't at all involved in the matter regarding my updating of some of the language used in gender-related pages. This is a toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history over something that was never an issue or edit war. I don't care about having my edits stick in the Seagraves stuff either, I am here because of this needless confrontation from this person. They continue to behave uncivilly here. Mewnst (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history" You did the EXACT same thing, its a sign of repeated disruptive editing behaviors that editors such as myself did not report, but I'm beginning to rethink that decision as a possible vandalism attempt and not a mere mistake of what agreed upon consensus is. Reaver55 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Reaver55's discussion style is rather too confrontational and personalised, and it is a general pattern.

They have about 80 edits in total. Back in May 2021 there's this edit summary, this user TP section, this TP post, this edit summary, and several other similar edits leading to a short block for disruption and personal attacks, and then to a longer block for edit warring. In June, there's this. In November, this. On 1 December this, later in December this, and in January this and this... and it's not like these are isolated incidents, either.

They have had warnings about personal attacks and posting inappropriate warning templates, and gave this response; that was right before this block. The second block in May, for edit warring, came with a note that further edit warring might lead to an indef block, so their revert warring a couple of days ago, seen in this edit history, is not impressive. (In addition, they have returned to a couple of other articles where their preferred wording had previously been challenged, and reverted back to "their" version without discussing it first, but that hasn't led to actual edit wars.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So what your saying is you know these disputes are old yet you bring it up to I guess add fuel to your argument? Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, a general pattern of disruptive behaviour and (based on their numerous accusations of bias) a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopaedia. Theknightwho (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mewnst seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, such as blanking a bored apes yacht club article, changing Transgender terms to non-scholarly accepted terms, adding massive unrelated stories to unrelated articles then blanking the entire story because theyre edit was undid, an act of vandalism. All without notice or even a thought of starting a discussion on the talk page. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

He is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia imho. Talk:Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition#"We_are_a_Black_militia... shows just one example of bad faith assumptions and personal attacks then claiming others are editors are biased. MartinezMD (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, not good at all. Taking on everyone and anyone. Concur with WP:NOTHERE.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Useless commentary giving their opinion about a dispute/page theyre not involved in.

You were constantly going AGAINST the agreed upon consensus and kept injecting your own opinion, it wasn't until you saw the American Militia movement with NFAC listed as #2 did you finally accept that it was part of the American militia movement and its a talk page specifically about how you are not maintaining a level of neutrality for NFAC since you constantly disagreeing on it 1. being a BLACK militia and 2. That it is a militia. So by asking you to remain unbiased and maintain a level of neutrality is not a overstep but rather apart of the Wikipedia rules on neutrality.

And if you really wanna go on about rules Mewnst, didn't you blank two sections of two different articles without using the talk pages then getting two notices about how you should utilize the talk page, could be considered "Treating editing as a battleground" or "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" such as Trying to put a whole paragraph about a proud boy member AFTER the misidentification incident, his story was not important only that he was a proud boy member, it would be more appropriate to put his story after that misidentification on the proud boys page. Again if you wanna talk about disruptive behaviour how about not utilizing the talk page and having to receive two notices for it or just complete blanking of certain stories without even making a single comment about if it should. Reaver55 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Not at all trying to invoke a resolution in my favor regarding that page or the discussion, there are merits to keeping it as you prefer and it's not worth arguing like a lawyer over. I am here because of how you've behaved through it all. Mewnst (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Like a lawyer? Like defending myself? How dare I defend myself indeed. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if Reaver55 should be blocked as NOTHERE or maybe for TEND instead, but they clearly lack the temperament for consensus building. I saw this removal of Slywriter's comment which drew me to this thread. I figured the removal was a mistake, but after seeing diffs of removing other comments on article Talk pages and using del tags at their own User Talk page, I don't think it was. The full thread at Talk:Not Fucking Around Coalition#"We are a Black militia... is what makes me support a block. That's a checklist of tendentious editing: refusing to listen, assuming bad faith, and getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not to mention forgetting to indent and sign their comments. I also see plenty of that here, in this very thread. Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see your evidence on how my edits on wikipedia articles are NOT from a neutral point of view, do you care to say China uncensored is an "right wing" organization like the vandal earlier today? That I reverted, or that NFAC isn't a black militia part of the Militia movement in the United States? Please provide some evidence. His comment should of been removed so I instead crossed it out and specified why. user is not involved and is giving their opinion "imho" which urban dictionary defines as "In my humble opinion", so it's an opinion, unrelated to a page or dispute that person is involved in. So why should it stay Woodroar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

MelanieMD, the user in dispute about NFAC being apart of the Militia undid my revision despite it being the Agreed upon consensus of the American militia page, so I started a discussion page on why it's a miltia based on the definition of a militia from Wikipedia and since they are based in the US it was part of the American Militia movement not to mention they are listed on that page by someone else a long time ago but the edit has remained since, but I believe the disagreement was a misunderstanding of including the word "movement" instead of militia linking to the "American Militia Movement", but either way it was resolved. However we ran into another misunderstanding

regarding the "We are a black militia' it seemed to me the user was trying to advocate deleting the Black Nationalist part of the initial sentence.

Regarding the "getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not" please provide that edit! And regarding the indents and signing before, I was new and just figuring it all out. Regarding the indenting... your comment about indenting isn't indented... So maybe cut some people some slack or maybe be a good editor and fix it. along with a note on what they did wrong and how to fix it, like the person who told me how to sign comments. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a block for tendentious editing, personal attacks, and/or edit warring. Continuing the reported behaviour in this thread isn't a good sign. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Just like to point out The user reporting me that constantly like to bring up past reports, has two notices for blanking without using the discussion page, a form of edit waring. Continuing the reported behavior wikipedia isn't a good sign for the site as a whole on maintaining an informative neutral Wikipedia. Also kind of odd how we just run into a minor dispute and here you are advocating for a blockage suddenly, but I didn't delete your comment because you are relating to page/edit dispute I'm involved in. Sly was not. It was nothing more than an opinion/commentary unrelated to any of the disputes. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of unrelated commentary is not against the rules. For the NFAC, take it up with the America Militia editors, its labeled as part of the American militia and I had to defend tooth and nail to ensure the agreed upon consensus that NFAC is a Militia, (Some mild debates about it being a black only/predominately black militia which primary sources contradicted that.), I did listen and I did debate their specific points, MelanieMD even agreed with me after much debate, even though I'm not the one who put them on The American militia movement page. It's the agreed upon consensus. I've even dealt with a staff member "Asartea" (The notice striked out in December 2020 because its over and done with) who agreed with me on maintaining a level of neutrality and that The American militia page has listed NFAC as a active militia in the United States, if you look on their page around the same time youll see my edits about disputing their notice, which they agreed and let the edit remain. Mewnst edits regarding Seagraves will have to remain on the talk page until we can get more opinions on whether or not we should add that specific paragraph and if it adds information relating to the pejorative usage of the racial epithet "Cracker", nor should you be randomly deleting and "blanks" stories without even so much of a notice or starting a discussion on the talk page. "Like a lawyer" You mean defending myself...? How dare I indeed. Regarding Sly's deletion, he is completely 100% uninvolved in any of the pages listed here, such as "China Uncensored" "Not Fucking Around Coalition" "Cracker(Term)" I didn't delete Bonadea, because they are involved in a minor dispute about grammatical correction vs "Stylistic choice" but because theres a dispute going on with Mewnst and seems like a bunch of people out of the wood works coming to "dog pile" on this report because they are mad at me for undoing/disagreeing with their points along with bringing counter evidence usually primary evidence, to dispute these points.

But as my profile says I'm trying to maintain a level of neutrality and blocking disruptive editors, without mentioning specific users since that enrages them, from destroying that neutrality. My edits are far more constructive and add to this Wikipedia than a certain user blanking numerous articles without warning or discussion.

As for my "behaviour" what? How dare I defend myself? How dare I delete random commentary from editors not even relating to this specific incident or any of the pages I have edited ever on Wikipedia. Just useless comment to further and seems to me trying to put me into a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - could an admin please assist? This user has added so many edits in so many different places that the section is becoming impossible to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean my edits are constructive and I spend a significant amount of time writing on Wikipedia maintaing a level of neutrality, almost like I'm not actually a troll/Vandal which seems to me like you are all trying to paint me out to be? Shocker. Reaver55 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m too tired to do anything tonight but to say the personal attacks at Talk:Cracker (term)#Issues, incomplete data regarding the North Carolina vandalism/"cracker" use and the edit summary here reverting a final warning by User:Bonadea do strongly suggest a block is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only people marked as administrator were allowed to give out warnings as you can tell from my notice board I was given a notice about "improper usage" yet my warnings were very much valid. Not even to mention editors have problems with me lining it out and now theres a problem with me deleting it. Please make up your minds on this. Regarding Unfair undids if my threads are to be removed because they're not "commenting on content not editors" then so should the others, essentially wiping out/removing those specific sentences/sections in the "Cracker(Term)" talk page and maintain neutrality Reaver55 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller and Bonadea: you both reference personal attacks, but I don't know what these are because... walls of text. So, maybe quote the thing...? Just throwing it out there. Also, this thread is long yo! El_C 00:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Reaver55: anyone can give you a warning. @El C: at the talk page there's "it wasn't until I undid their revision did they act in spite and blank the whole thing," and "Frankly its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits about a specific no-body proud boy member whos not even involved in this story other than being a proud boy member which was already established and now you made a report because you didn't get what you wanted. Literally just shows more bias". That was aimed at [[User:Grayfell who he accuses of personal attacks, maybe that refers to Grayfell's comment "You came out swinging with a lot of inappropriate accusations. It's far too late to play coy. Insinuations and aspersions are also personal attacks. "So What editor?" won't fool anyone, and more importantly, it's not an excuse for casting aspersions in the first place." The edit summary was "Undid revision 1067121859 by Bonadea (talk) Undid Harassment and misuse of warning system." Doug Weller talk 07:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't want to make this too nuanced, because I think there may well be WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems that'll need to be addressed regardless, but I don't see a personal attack there. The tone is hostile and combative (WP:CIVIL), sure, but failing to assume good faith isn't automatically a personal attack (WP:NPA). Ditto for calling someone "biased," or telling them not "to play coy," or falsely complaining of harassment — none of these are personal attacks. El_C 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Surely saying that User:Bonadea is a harasser is a personal attack? The "misuse" bit may be just confusion. Certainly both show a lack of good faith. And I still think accusing someone of acting out in anger isn't civil. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug, where was the word harasser used? I see you quoted harassment, but they are not necessarily interchangeable. El_C 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: that's too subtle for me. Harassment means a harasser surely? Doug Weller talk 12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug, in the same way that "trolling" isn't necessarily interchangeable with troll. Anyway, g'luck, I'm gonna do something else now. El_C 13:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 13:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

(edit conflict with the message about the block – thank you, Bish.) Hmm. I do think the edit summary "Dealing with a extremely biased editor" is a personal attack, especially coupled with phrasing like "I will [...] not allow you to further wash away the truth"). Similarly, "Stop spouting CCP Propaganda China bot. You live in West Taiwan." when removing a 7-month-old 3RR warning. Since this thread was started, there's "its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits" and " Replying to a beg for admin based on malicious bad faith lies." (in the edit summary). Going through their contributions is sapping my will to live a little, but those are some recent instances. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are indeed personal attacks. Had you did the thing, where the NPA warning also contains a diff of the attack, I'd have blocked for that. Oh well, live and learn. El_C 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

51.6.138.13 by Alexander Davronov

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

---

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

Is it WP:BKFIP having fun again by going after my edits? Can someone take a look?

IGES

21:20, January 19, 2022 - «fixed style errors, removed badly-written recent addition»

19:53, January 17, 2022 - «tidy-up; source»

↑ Removed my small, but well sourced contribution under a pretext of minor issues

ANGLE (software)

17:31, January 19, 2022 - «restored older text which was in good English»

17:27, January 19, 2022 - «Undid revision 1066555004 by Alexander Davronov talk) riddled with errors»

23:05, January 18, 2022 - «‎top: OpenGL ES»

↑ The same

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

• Yep, that's them. Blocked for 3 months. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Abusive genre warrior from Greater Buenos Aires

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

---

• 170.51.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

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

Fully support blocking. I'm not well-verses in range blocks though, so I'd rather have someone else take care of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind when it comes to Argentinian (sorry, that's the Spanish pronunciation) music editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Walamba.kana

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

---

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

[94] [95] [96] - Removed 1,500 text, replacing the Arab background of the figure with that of an Afghan/Pashtun

[97] [98] Removed 6,472 text, added unsourced claim that the dynasty was Afghan/Pashtun

[99] Removed the probable Tajik background of the dynasty

Right after his block expired, he removed the Persian/Dari spelling of this article and replaced with Pashtun [100]

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

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

HistoryofIran - I haven't looked at the diffs, because that insult alone should immediately lead to an indef. However, I haven't been able to verify your translation. You don't indicate what language it's written in, and Google Translate is giving me meaningless nonsense when set to 'detect language'. Can you point me at something that would confirm your translation? (Sorry for being a pain on this; I hope you can appreciate that I need to be certain about what somebody said before I indef an account.) Girth Summit _(blether) 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit I understand. It's Persian (and perhaps used in Pashto as well?), but as far as I'm aware Google Translate only translates Persian written in the Persian script. There are sites which show Persian insults, such as this one [101], which has the words "kos" and "khar". --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's seems clear enough - I've blocked for personal attacks/harassment. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Alirwez061

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

---

Alirwez061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be on a mission to Arabicize certain Iran-related articles (mainly the ones to do with Khuzestan) with his own POV or/and non-WP:RS sources, rather than attempting to improve them. In fact, he has a long history of that.

17 April 2021 - Changed the name of "White Bridge (Iran)" to "Ahwaz White Bridge". "Ahwaz" is the Arabic variant of the city of Ahvaz, often used in a nationalistic/irredentist sense. It has no official status whatsoever.

25 April 2021 - Added the name "Arabian Gulf" to the Persian Gulf article, a politically motivated name used by a few Arab states.

5 September 2021 - Removed sourced mention of Persians being indigenous to Khuzestan, claiming that they are not "are not indigenous to this area"

6 December 2021 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added about this 'Persianization' section.

20 January 2022 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added. The cited page is literally a map of Iran and its provinces.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear HistoryofIran, first of all thanks a lot for naming a few of my contributions to wikipedia, and secondly, I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia, but my recent edits on Emirate_of_Arabistan are all sourced and verified, and I request admin support as some accounts (probably of the same person) tried to damage the quality and completeness of the article by continuously deleting resources, preventing the improvement of the article. thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• "I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia"

Strongly disagree. Its apparent from the many diffs that were issued as warnings on your talk page[102]-[103]-[104]-[105] or through edit summaries that you are on a campaign in Wikipedia. That campaign is to promote an irredentist pro-Arab POV in Khuzestan-related articles of Iran, by deliberately misinterpreting sources and cherry-picking material. We call that WP:TENDENTIOUS editing to the point where its WP:NOTHERE. I can add many more diffs that attest to this, in addition to the ones posted by user:HistoryofIran. No, this campaign has never stopped and it is in fact the sole reason why are you being reported to ANI. The feigned assertion that it was somehow only when you "started your activity" is easily disproven by the fact that many disruptive diffs dating to December and September 2021 and Januari 2022 can be found. You've barely made 50 edits within the past 6 months, yet they are drenched in disruption. Here are two more:

1. Tried to turn the non-Semitic Elamite Empire into a Semitic one, using a Biblical quote. Date September 2021.[106]
2. Changed "Khuzestan Province" into "Emirate of Arabistan". Edit summary "Ahwaz is not part of the peninsula" (the WP:COMMONNAME is "Ahvaz"). Dated December 2021[107]

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The edits to White Bridge (Iran) and Persian Gulf don't appear to be inappropriate. Arabian Gulf shows enough use that it should be considered as an WP:ALTTITLE, while there is some reason to believe that "Ahwaz" is the common name for Ahvaz. BilledMammal (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

'Ahwaz' is often used in sources about medieval Caliphate Iran or by some Arabic news sites yes, but certainly not (neutral) sources related to modern Iran. How is suddenly making such page move appropriate? With no discussion whatsoever? Likewise, the bit about Arabian Gulf (a politically motivated word with no historical basis) should be discussed first. Moreover, you did not address the other, more problematic behaviours of this user as well, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at recent news, while Ahvaz is slightly more common, there is significant use of Ahwaz, such as in The Australian - I've added it as an altname to that article. And the move was appropriate under WP:BOLD; while a more experienced editor would have understood that it was likely to be controversial and opened an RM, this was only their 30th edit. As for adding "Arabian Gulf" as a WP:ALTTITLE, I think most editors would follow WP:BRD. I haven't reviewed the other behaviours in depth as I don't intend to become too involved in this discussion, although I note that there is coverage of persianization in Khuzestan in reliable scholarly sources, possibly enough to warrant a mention in the relevant articles - and issues understanding sourcing requirements are not uncommon among new editors. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How was it appropriate under WP:BOLD? Ahwaz is still a far cry from WP:COMMON NAME. If you don't want to become too involved, then why are you still here? You ignored the most blatant parts of his behaviour, and are now making excuses for him which he didn't even make himself - this is concerning. Sure, there might have been done Persianization in Khuzestan, but that is still not mentioned in the 'source' he cited, which he keeps claiming there is. The user literally admits on his userpage that he 'Supports the independence of Ahwaz' - something which he clearly projects into his edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors can make mistakes, as long as they don't amount to a WP:CIR issue, and Ahwaz is close enough to the common name that it is a reasonable mistake. And you're right, I don't want to become involved, so I will leave the discussion now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Imagine using retroactive WP:CRUSH to justify long-term disruptive editing. What about the attempt at labeling the Elamite Empire as Semitic, as demonstrated above?[108] Is that related to supposed Persianization in Khuzestan, or irredentism related to the Persian Gulf, i.e. the internationally recognized name of the body of water? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPI CU comment: Alirwez061 filed a SPI saying HistoryofIran and LouisAragon are the same person. The evidence presented did not lead me to see these users as the same person and I did not find any evidence to suggest this either. This was probably made in good faith, but wanted to provide this context. The SPI page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Alirwez061 just tried to start an SPI against LouisAragon and HistoryofIran which was dismissed with prejudice: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban / indefinite block proposal

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. I propose either an indefinite topic ban from all Arab and Iran-related topics, broadly construed. OR, an indefinite block. The community has wasted enough time with this disruption--time which could be used more fruitfully. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear user LouisAragon, I really appreciate your time with us, but your recent edit at Emirate of Arabistan is obviously unconstructive as you are continuously deleting resources and edit-warring and I recommend you to refrain from vandalizing the article furthermore. Thanks and regards. Alirwez061 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

An accusation of vandalism without supporting evidence is a personal attack. I see you have made the same accusation in an edit summary at the article you reference. You would be well-advised to withdraw both of those accusations in your next edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits in question, that's not vandalism. That's a content dispute, and furthermore it certainly seems to be POV-pushing on Alirwez061's part. New regimes make name changes all the time, and there's nothing unusual, sinister or particularly noteworthy about these century-old changes. Ravenswing 22:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear wikipedians, first of all, resource removal is obvious vandalism and itself is an evidence, and secondly, dear user Ravenswing, I don't think it is neceasary for us to get in particular details of the content inself. Content/Resource removal is as obvious as it is. I immediately request admin assistance. Thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean that you prefer we don't examine it too closely, so that others see it as simply another content dispute that may also run against WP:UNDUE. Sorry to puncture your bubble, but as it happens, we make such value judgments all the time, which is why such reversions do not constitute prima facie vandalism. Seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages for such edits, and if consensus doesn't go your way, accept the result. Ravenswing 06:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. There are millions of topics in the encyclopedia that a given editor can work on without running into this kind of issue. If this editor can contribute productively in other areas for a year or so without problems arising, the community can decide at that time let them work in their preferred area again. BD2412 T 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Millions of topics, how tropical! Anyway, I'm fine with rescinding the block in favour of a TBAN, though I have reservations even about that. But I'll go with da flow. El_C 07:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I said what I said. I'm not categorically opposed to a block, but I believe in last chances. BD2412 T 07:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Tautology is a topic! I also believe in final chances, but there's been multiple warnings (though they've been removing em from their talk page). El_C 07:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alirwez061 blocked indef

User_talk:Alirwez061#Indefinite_block. El_C 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Draft:Director Neeraj Singh and Bikrookanpurgangster

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but would appreciate someone taking a look at Draft:Director Neeraj Singh. This was created by Bikrookanpurgangster who I believe is also editing it as IP2402:3a80:b42:ec57:0:63:9c5c:3c01 (I'm not complaining about the logged-off editing). The second edit summary on creating the page was "i am an indian writer and director i want to have a wikipedia page so that i can connect among my fans". The article had already been created as Draft:Neeraj_Singh, which was declined by Idoghor Melody and rejected by TheWikiholic. Based on the poor referencing, the fact the article obviously existed to connect with fans, i.e. was promotional, and had already been rejected under a different name, I tagged it for speedy deletion. The IP editor removed the tag. I replaced it with an explanation in the edit summary that they could contest it, but not remove the tag [109]. I also put a note on the IP's talk page [110], and on the draft's talk page. They have removed the tag for a second time. This is clearly going nowhere. I suspect they're going to continue to create drafts and remove tags. I don't know if I'm over-reacting, or whether my original tag was justified. But there's no point in getting drafts rejected and declined if they're just going to get recreated with different names, and WP isn't a social media site. I've tried to explain, but I don't think the editor gets it. Elemimele (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To make the COI even more obvious, user Bikrookanpurgangster is named after the film in the article: "... the film titled Bikroo Kanpur Gangster is based on..." rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I Speedy Deleted it as another draft on the topic already exists. We don't actually have a CSD criteria for that regarding drafts, but I think it will pass muster. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Invalid vandalism warning.

Please look at this edit by bbb23. I was warned for vandalizing wikipedia. Is that a joke? I didn't vandalize anything. Look at the history of helpful edits from my IP address. No vandalism.

I tried to tag an article for deletion, but then I cannot because I don't have a username. So I flagged the article as db-album. I think it's a pretty easy decision to delete that album under the speedy criteria because there's nothing notable about it.

So explain why I'm given a harsh warning like this. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Further, that admin has a locked talk page so I cannot leave her a notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you are supposed to notify any user that you discuss here on their talk page, but you are unable to because their talk page is protected, I will alert Bbb23 for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

bbb23 will likely delete this discussion entirely without discussion. I have seen it before. Again I ask everyone to look at my edits to see no vandalism. Further, look at the page I flagged for deletion. I'm sure it meets speedy criteria and it would fail AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• If it had just been the bogus tagging of the Michael Jones album, I would not have left a vandalism warning. However, the IP had also edited the Michael Jones article to state that Jones had died. This was sourced to an unverified Facebook page. It was reverted by others. Based on the IP's comments here, it looks like they have a chip on their shoulder ("I have seen it before"). Moreover, they could just have asked me on their Talk page the basis for the warning rather than bringing this to ANI, and I would have responded.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Your talk page is locked. I cannot contact you. If you LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MY EDITS you will see I am not a vandal. Giving me the warning you did is completely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) They probably could have been a bit more cautious in their wording (I wouldn't have leaped straight to the level 4im "blatant vandalism, only warning" template in a situation like this), but a few of your recent edits have had very basic problems, so I could see how they could leap to assuming it's vandalism. First of all, this nomination (in addition to the malformatted template) is plainly invalid because Michael Jones has an article and, as it says in the template, {{db-album}} only applies when the artist doesn't. It's right in the first sentence, so it's hard to miss, and the fact that you went from trying AFD to that template (and knew enough to invoke a CSD) makes it reasonable to conclude that you were intentionally using a CSD inappropriately to get around not being able to AFD it. Second, you cited a random facebook post here (in the edit summary, not the text), which is completely unacceptable as a source to establish that a BLP subject is dead - and at least at a first glance I can't find any reliable sources at all saying he is dead yet (though admittedly it's a hard name to search due to how common it is), which makes it reasonable for people to be leery that it could be a hoax. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have made no vandalism edits. None. Look at the history. Michael Jones, someone with whom I have corresponded, is dead. His own Facebook page and other pages verify it. There's a memorial video link on his own YouTube channel with a countdown as to when it will be. Why don't you do the right thing, apologize for mistaking me as a vandal, and then put his album page (which is not notable) up for AFD? Can you please do the right thing? Isn't there a WP:AGF rule? You don't seem to follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I don't think the {{uw-vandalism4im}} template you got was quite the right one to go with - it's more for completely unambiguous "replaces an entire page with cocks cocks cocks cocks" sort of vandalism, not for dubious edits that could be deliberate vandalism or could just be an inexperienced or confused editor. There's a reason the lower-severity templates are worded more ambiguously. But I don't think a {{uw-vandalism1}} "your unhelpful edit has been reverted" warning would have been inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Fine, then we could have had a discussion. I only removed the AFD template because I don't have a username and I cannot do it. I wasn't trying to "circumvent" anything. The warning I got is just wrong. Someone kindly add AFD to that album. As much as I like Michael, that's not even his best album and there's nothing at all notable about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If he has died we still have to wait for an WP:RS to cover that before we can reflect it on Wikipedia - it should not take too long. Just set up a Google News alert or the like, wait for something to appear, and cite that when it does. And if you want to list a page at AFD despite being unregistered, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion explains how - If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In retrospect, I agree with Aquillion that my warning was too harsh. Unfortunately, I originally thought that the death material was completely unsourced, but that was my error. I'll remove the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Because of the discussion at the IP's Talk page, instead of removing the warning, I struck it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea

Please have a review of the page on Republic of Crimea, which is incorrectly consistently marked as a subject of russia by russian bots. This violates international law and many national laws as well. There is no reason to have this kind of illegal marking in the the article. Crimea was, is and always will be part of Ukraine, illegally temporarily occupied by Russia and should be marked as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? 331dot is a Russian bot?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If I am, I'm not getting paid enough for it. (that's a joke) This doesn't require admin action as the user has not attempted to discuss it with me. The article summarizes independent sources which state that Crimea is administered as part of Russia and others consider it to be under occupation. There is nothing "illegal" about this content. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) This happens on a regular basis, many Ukrainian users are incapable of understanding the difference between the Republic of Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and consider any mention that Crimea is de-facto administered by Russia as POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to duplicate the discussion at Talk:Republic of Crimea here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We actually have a discussion on this on the talk page and you have suggested for me to gather troops and attack Crimea to make sure Wikipedia has correct status for Crimea. Without even commenting on this, I am no expert on how Wikipedia works, but I don't think that 331dot gets to decide how the status of Crimea should be marked on the Wikipedia page, so this requires admin input. 331dot have repeteadly changed my edits to have it marked the way hejust stated - part of Ukraine, temporarily occupied and administered by Russia. This is the status of this territory and should be marked as such. Marking this as part of Russia breaks international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For sure, you are not to decide this either. Certainly not before you become an expert on how Wikipedia works.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We do say it, but the article is not about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea it is about the Republic of Crimea. A separate entity, in the sense that we have an article on both claims. At this stage you appear to be a POV pushing wp:spa who is wp:nothere. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• that's a joke — said every bot ever. El_C 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So why exactly he is deciding this and not me? On which ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS requires you to get wp:consensus to make such a major change.You did not have it, as such it was down to your to stop reverting and win them over. Now at least two other users have told you you are wrong over this. As such it is now time for you to drop this and accept you do not have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

how can I have consensus with 332dot if he seriously suggested for me to start a war so that he could change this status on Wikipedia? Another his idea was to have a UN resolution on how this should be marked on WIkipedia. Are you guys serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You were the one that said under international law the Republic of Crimea was not Russian, he just asked for proof of that claim. It may well be that the UN has said the crimea is not Russian, that is not what the article is about. It is about the Russian crated puppet state.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well no, he specifically requested UN resolution on what it should be named in WIkipedia and edited it later to look like he asks for the law you are talking about. And yes, there are resolutions marking that Crimea is occupied by Russia, everyone knows that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

But this article is not about the Crimea, are you even reading what you are being told? At this stage, you are heading into wp:tenditious territory and are becoming a time sink (and learn to wp:sign and wp:indent as well).Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Block the IP. This is a waste of valuable editors time. When someone starts from a position of "Illegal under international law", the likelihood of a rational discussion ending with the gain of a new productive wikipedia editor is near zero.Slywriter (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Wow if you don't like what you are told, you are trying to call someone a time sink or to even block his IP? If you don't know it, then I will tell you, that everyone in Ukraine and Russia calls Autonomous Republic of Crimea (UA) or Republic of Crimea (a puppet state created by Russia to administer occupied Crimean peninsula - yes, as you can see I know the distinction, don't you even have doubts I don't) simply as Crimea. To avoid you using this against me, I will in future use the correct term - if this actually adds anything to the topic of discussion - namely that the discussed statement, does not clearly specify that this was entity created to administer occupied territory and is only recognized by Russia and only a few other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And when someone starts by saying block the person providing argument cause it wastes his valuable time, something is wrong with such statements in my opinion and should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is now clear this is a wp:nothere account, I am unsure a block is needed a TBAN is, then maybe they might learn how to act by editing in a less contentious topic area more conducive to learning how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat myself because this hasn't been addressed, but why is this being discussed here when the OP started a discussion at the correct place, Talk:Republic of Crimea, moments before creating this one? This should have been closed immediately in favour of that discussion, but now a behavioural issue has been raised so we are left with a train-wreck. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

While the substance of this particular issue shall be indeed discussed at RoC talkpage, the broad issue of long-term country misplacing by IPs might still be worthy of consideration, because similar things also happen, from time to time, on Ukrainian counterpart's page, Autonomous Republic of Crimea: users fail (or don't bother at all) to read and/or understand {{About}} headers on these two pages and repeatedly try to put wrong country/subdivision pair on one or these pages: pro-Russian IPs try to label AR Crimea a Russian subdivision, and pro-Ukrainian IPs try to label Republic of Crimea a Ukrainian subdivision. I'm afraid, that we end up in either putting these "do not confuse" notices in editnotices of these pages (perhaps in big font, so editors will surely notice that when editing one of these pages) or, if that won't help, the time might come to semiprotect these pages indefinitely. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, as this seems to be an IP issue lets just prevent IP;s from editing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of ISIS propaganda twitter sources

Islamiyyatstate (talk · contribs) A user by the name of Islamiyyatstate (A reference to an islamic state?) has recently started editing Battle of al-Hasakah with twitter sources. More specifically twitter sources that are ISIS propaganda, he was warned about this here. Moreover this does not seem to be this editor's first use of ISIS propaganda sources, previously on the Kabul Bombing attack committed by ISIS this user also put in Pro-ISIS twitter sources into the article which can be seen as POV pushing, see here. They have been told not to use a pro-ISIS twitter account as a source multiple times, but keeps choosing to not get the point 1, 2, 3, the twitter account being used a source here is this account a pro-ISIS account spouting ISIS propaganda created recently. Warnings and explanations towards not using twitter on talk has failed as they insist that twitter can be used as source. I am putting this here as I do not they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Also Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) is under the Syrian Civil War community sanctions, so shouldn't it be extended proctored, or at the very least semi-protected to avoid cases like this? Des Vallee (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have agreed not to use Twitter links?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Horang2022 reported by Reiro: BLP concerns

Original heading: "User joining only to stalk a living person". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Horang2022 (talk · contribs)

Hello, I am Reiro, one of the administrators in Korean Wikipedia. I know I have ongoing discussion with this user, but he seems some IPs in Korean Wikipedia, urging to reveal the personal information related someone since 2020, just editing once and twice. Please look at below in talk:lilka:

• Horang2022: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied.
  IPs :And how funny is it to erase the real name that can be confirmed from the secondary source and the primary source when Lilka has revealed his face, voice, job, birthday, and academic background?[111]
• Horang2022: Because Lilka intends to make other merchandise under her controversial trademarks, her real name should be public information to track the decision about her trademarks.
  IPs: In addition to the registration of intellectual property rights, the official registered media called influencer Dot com and Daily e-sports reporters from corporations such as Daily e-Sports have their real names directly on articles written by other officially registered media, and there are more than one independent article.[112]
• Horang2022: Not only United states but also South Korean laws distinguishes high-profile individuals and low-profile individual. She is not private individual under US laws or South Korean laws because she made many self-promotional activities.
  IPs:Is it an infringement of personal information that South Korea, which has a resident registration system unlike the United States, does not need to hide its real name to prevent identity theft?[113]

Lilka does already noticed that she has been suffering some stalkers for 3 years, and does not want to reveal her personal information on the internet. Also, questioned sources are not appropriate to treat to them. However, Horang2022 bring unreliable Korean sources to justify his edit, which are same things that IPs had displayed. I am from South Korea, but I have never been heard Shinmoongo News and UTAgate Naver, Daum. They have less reliability and less boundary than WhatCulture.

Nevertheless, the IPs once revealed her information on the Korean ko:릴카 article, I deleted the revision and rejected their request to allow write it at January 2, 2022. This user suddenly joined 10 days ago, making her article with the information rejected by Korean Wikipedia, due to poor resources and violation of WP:BLP. and ToBeFree checked that they stated very inappropriate and malicious will in deleted edits, throughout e-mail. (Those revisions was deleted, so I cannot describe in detail here).

Horang2022 seems Single-purpose account, for the leakage of a streamer's information. In above, he/she has too many "coincidences" with IPs, just editing once or twice in Korean Wikipedia. It is sure that they chose to detour to English Wikipedia, for self-satisfying to leak inappropriate information.

Please block this account indefinitely. Thank you.--Reiro (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and I have no obligation to tell whether I talked in Korean Wikipedia or not. It's my privacy. At that time, Shinmoongo News source was not published. His claim 'I have never been heard Shinmoongo News'(신문고뉴스, 인터넷뉴스 신문고) is false because Reiro actively participated in deletion reviews of Lee Gye-deok article in Korean Wikipedia for 8 years(ko:토론:이계덕/보존2). Lee Gye-deok was a journalist of Shinmoongo News. The Shinmoongo News source is from a partner news site of Daum and give public or academic interests about intellectual property to publish her real name. Because source from Shinmoongo News contains a screenshot of Korean Intellectual Property Office database, there is no doubt for Lilka's real name and reliability. There are three independent reliable secondary sources about Lilka's real name. Books from scholars and case laws suggested that celebrities who are known for trying to get public attention or appearing in the media are public figures and they have less right to privacy. In Korean Wikipedia, Reiro blocked IPs and removed opinions in deletion review to prevent undeletion of two non-commercial organizations(한국서가협회, 대한장기협회) but they were eventually restored by another administrator. This block request should be declined. Horang2022 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Reiro's block request to take an advantage on discussion should be declined. In Korean Wikipedia, Reiro took advantage on deletion review of two non-commercial organizations(한국서가협회, 대한장기협회) by blocks and ignored WP:INVOLVED but they were eventually restored by another administrator. Horang2022 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with this multi-wiki conflict is to insist that this is the English Wikipedia with its own policies and guidelines. User behavior on the English Wikipedia is usually evaluated independently of user behavior on the Korean Wikipedia.

There was an edit war on the page Lilka, a biography of a living person. The page has not been reviewed yet.

Reiro insists on removal of the disputed content, Horang2022 advocates for inclusion. Per WP:ONUS, part of the verifiability policy, the content remains removed until a consensus for inclusion is found. There is currently no such consensus.

Helpful advice about dispute resolution, for example about disengaging or requesting a third opinion, can be found at WP:Dispute resolution. It's really worth reading. This noticeboard here is a last resort for user behavior; I'm relatively certain that I'll be able to deal with further edit warring without the need of this noticeboard. Regarding the content, perhaps neutrally inviting opinions at WP:BLPN can help.

At the moment, I neither see a need for an indefinite site-wide block of Horang2022, who is already technically unable to edit the page, nor any action against Reiro, who has enforced the verifiability policy through the BLP exemption at WP:3RRNO#7. Ideally, this section here should be closed with a link to WP:DR. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Zagraut'sTacoFest WP:NOTHERE, WP:GREATWRONGS

Zagraut'sTacoFest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost all of this user’s edits are conspiracy mongering, or otherwise violations of Wikipedia:Competence is required. They’re clearly not here to do anything productive. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've collapsed their latest conspiracy theory infodump. I don't think we're getting anything useful here. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you think they should be blocked before they waste more editors’ time? Dronebogus (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Probably, yes, but I'd like to see more opinions. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, they should be blocked before they waste more editors’ time--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

         Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious ban-evasion and disruption

• Millitaryactor (talk · contribs) was blocked after making a series of edits to US army tank articles; repeatedly adding and removing periods, followed by an edit to ‎1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War.
• Licionfreeman (talk · contribs) has just made a series of edits to US army tank articles; repeatedly adding and removing periods, followed by an edit to ‎1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War.
• Perhaps an admin could take a look? - wolf 06:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thewolfchild Per BilCat's request on my talk I have blocked the new editor. Looks like the page was protected due to prior disruption, and I would encourage you to consider opening an SPI case if you can track down any prior users blocked for similar disruption. Spencer^T•C 06:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Spencer:, thank you for the quick response. I will definitely file an SPI if I come across any similar editing behavior. Cheers - wolf 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

      @Thewolfchild: This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PaullyMatthews, JSYK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

74.15.131.143

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

IP has attempted to add that this dynasty was of Berber Banu Ifran origin four times now, with no source whatsoever [114] [115] [116] [117]. He has already been blocked twice this month for vandalism and edit warring [118]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I blocked them for the third and, unless someone unblocks them next week, for the last time this month.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Conduct problems at move discussion

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal attack by Achezet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Disclosing ANI discussion involving Djm-leighpark not Omegatron with regard to article/talk overlaying discussion)

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

I wouldn't want to prejudice any serious discussion here, but, to be brutally honest, it is starting to look a bit like either no-one cares about this complaint, or they are all going WP:TLDR. I make no comment on the validity of the complaint. As an aside, this may be better suited to WP:AN. Just a few peanuts from the comment gallery. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a sad examplebad example to set. Thankyou. 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the summarised version, I'm sure it will help. With the email, I'm referring to the "Email this user" function. It goes via the WMF servers, and neither of your email addresses are actually visible to each other. Generally, users don't directly email each other, and references to "email" generally refer to the "email this user" function. I'm sorry if I caused some confusion by my lack of clarity earlier on that. Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sending a message via the "E-mail this user" function "will disclose your email address for the purposes of a reply" (source). Distelfinck (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reading through the discussion, I see some bludgeoning by Omegatron. It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more. The canvassing concerns seem hyperbolic, particularly given the balance of the !votes in that discussion against Omegatron. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: Thankyou for taking time to analyze. With respect I think you've been a little soft to the unsigned significant changes in the discussion/nomination when people have responded to that nomination. So it's gone above a little bludgeoning. In terms of the canvas not affecting the !voting, that not really the point. Per Special:Diff/1061321198 the criteria was one of the top 10 contributors to this article - actually I've pretty sure on the edit count metric was not top ten prior to the canvas but useful contributions post canvas brought this user into a top ten edit count. A "top-ten" contributor who had been strident in attempting to ensure the article was not promoted was omitted. It is actually pretty easy to accept that Omegatron would believe they were doing an unbiased canvas ... though in practice it is very difficult to avoid concerns of systemic bias from particular angle and the obvious thing per recommendation is to declare the canvas on the discussion. But ion all events the canvas was secondary to the bludgeoning and talk interference and I again put as a very poor example for admins to show. Thankyou. 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ultimately this will likely fail due to a dialog failure here, I have to AGF this is not simply so Omegatron can cling to their adminship badge. With regards to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination considerations bludgeoning if it hints at restarting Dispute resolution processes will be needed or a more review etc. discussed with the closer ... if that sort of dialog fails there would seem reason for Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship under Disputes or complaints; that's not really a punishment angle its that privileges should not be left with those who don't really need them; on the counter side removal of said rights might cause Omegatron to go inactive. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Malecomes (talk · contribs)

This account is an obvious troll placing curse words in Turkish, and other troll edit summaries. Beshogur (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious NOTHERE is obvious. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unilateral reopening of a contentious closed RfC by an involved participant.

See recent edits to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, where Nug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has arbitrarily reopened a closed RfC [119] without the slightest attempt to gain consensus to do so. [120] This article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and it should be entirely self-evident that such an action, by one of the major participants in the discussion, without any prior discussion whatsoever, cannot possibly achieve anything but further disruption. And frankly, I don't have the slightest doubt that disruption was the objective, given that the RfC didn't go Nug's way.

I suggest that an uninvolved admin revert Nug's out-of-process arbitrary action, and inform Nug that any further disruption will lead to DS sanctions. Either that, or someone should take this whole mess to ArbCom, where they can look at the broader context, the gaming of the system (from multiple contributors, on both sides of the debate), and the broader failures of the 'community' to prevent these endless cycles of nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC says anyone can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed. I think given the topic a bit more time is certainly warranted given recent history. If an admin thinks otherwise then no problem. --Nug (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That response is exactly what I mean by 'gaming the system'. Nug is fully aware that a request for closure of the RfC was submitted 5 days ago. Waiting until now without raising the slightest objection to the proposal, and then acting unilaterally, is intentionally disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• The closure was requested 5 days ago and nothing has happened, so I'd imagine many admins would be relieved that the RFC has been extended to allow a bit more time to see if clearer consensus develops. Last thing we need is another closure with "no consensus" for any option. --Nug (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So why did you act unilaterally? After five days. Without the slightest attempt to gain 'consensus' for your actions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC doesn't require consensus, and there are people still !voting after the first rfc tag expired, so a bit extra time is justified. The RFC is now closed, so this discussion is now moot.--Nug (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  There have been nearly 100 votes cast over the course of a month. Exactly what are you expecting to happen that will suddenly cause a clear consensus to emerge from this discussion? Sometimes RfCs end with no consensus. In this case, I think it would be better to close it as no consensus, study the results, take a break for a month or two, and then perhaps consider starting a new RfC that attacks the problem from a different angle, presents different options to the reader, and builds off of the discussion that took place at this RfC. Nothing is going to be changed by leaving this one open longer. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's an outcome. At least we finally got some movement. --Nug (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Violation of Talk Page Guidelines

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

---

There was another violation of talk page guidelines concerning this RFC. User:My very best wishes changed their !vote, which was permitted, and then changed my signed tabulation of !votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=1067343317&oldid=1067343231&diffmode=source

The talk page guidelines list a limited number of situations in which the comments of another editor may be edited, at Editing Others Comments, and this was not one of them. In particular, the guideline says: " Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". The meaning was that the count of !votes that I had tabulated was, to the best of my knowledge, correct as of the time of the signature timestamp. I see that the RFC is being closed. I object to having my tabulation changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the closer User:Wugapodes knows how to assess !votes. --Nug (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I wasn't concerned that the closer would be misled. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor on Template:Professional wrestling in the United States

(User talk:Oknazevadtalk) is consistently reversing edits to Template:Professional wrestling in the United States based on their own personal bias. ( 02:11, 29 October 2021‎ : Meltzer is a rumor-mongering tool. It is far too soon to make any changes to this template based on news. Wait.) His conduct is poor and his reasoning is illogical. Requesting an immediate ban. Thecleanerand (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where's your attempt to discuss this with me either on the template talk page or my talk page? Previous discussion was inconclusive at best and leaned toward not including the NWA as national based on the lack of national TV deal, which had previously been decided by consensus. Either way, this is a sever overreaction. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:RonanTheDude ignoring MOS:ALBUM

User:RonanTheDude has received numerous warnings for ongoing disruptive edits at music-related articles.

Mainly he ignores WP:PERSONNEL, which says to use lower case when listing credits; he's going around changing these to title case (caps) – [121] [122].

Another thing he's been doing is adding a new column to track listings to list featured singers – [123], [124]. No such initiative has been discussed at WikiProject Albums, and I doubt it would garner much support because of how redundant it is.

He has also made an edit which some might interpret as a GF mistake, but could just as well be vandalism, namely listing Jimmy Page has having been involved with a Jeff Beck album – [125] (which is an outrageous lie).

I invoke WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR as reasons to do something about his editing. I've yet to see one constructive edit by him. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, Liz managed to engage them into conversation at their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam

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

---

Special:Contributions/219.73.12.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 28 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Abusive message from User:Stellarthustra616

Nasty message left is here. Skyerise (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a real charmer, that one... indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Vfnn by Alexander Davronov

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

---

Vfnn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - NOTICE

Is it another WP:BKFIP sock? Any help?

Previous requests

WP:ANI#Incidents#51.6.138.13_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#Hohaaa_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#IncidentArchive1084#User:51.6.138.90_reported_by_Alexander_Davronov

Diffs

Jan 24, 2022, 16:15 - «fixed grammar blunders in lead, reduced to four paragraphs»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:24 - «‎Modules & Tools: fixed severe style failings»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:22 - «‎Compiler feature detection: rm badly-written uninformative text»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:17 - «"in other words" either means you didn't explain it properly, or you think the reader is too stupid to understand your explanation.»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:07 - «rv harmful edits - unencyclopaedic tone, appalling grammar, unnecessary markup which broke formatting, : incorrect bold face, abuse of MOS:CONTRACTIONS, etc, etc...»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hornetzz as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

78.190.1.136

This user is so.n of a b.it.ch and spread fake Poorsian propaganda. One day he will be remove from wikipedia for using site as gaysian propaganda. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Let us know if they return after or ip hop. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

They have: Gaysian lobby on work LoL :D You fking little sheet you are the one who nationalist manipulater editor --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: This is his third IP already, which he not only uses to make nasty comments, but also WP:TENDENTIOUS disruption and edit warring. Think a range-block might be needed: Iranian facist. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just done a range block over this, hopefully its sufficient. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Airports

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

---

I recently started manual adding tags to airport articles in order to improve the sourcing of the - often horrendously bad - articles. This was earlier discussed here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#editing thousands of articles to enforce a rule that does not actually exist without action. Now User:Mako001 is removing the tags under the WP:BRD-excuse, but without discussion and clearly done by a bot. These removals are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 11:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) They seem to be reverting these edits now (i.e. restoring your hidden notes). Can this be closed?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've actually noticed (and removed) one of those tags; in this case, primary sources would appear to be allowed by WP:PRIMARY #3, as they are being used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". That is not to say there isn't a significant issue with those tables, both in terms of their existence in those articles (See this ongoing RFC, which is how I encountered your tag) and in terms of their sourcing, which is often non-existent or not verifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, my apologies, I didn't realise that the issue was discussed fully prior to this, I am reverting my removals, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted all, if I've missed any please let me know. Is any further action needed? Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To make it clear, whilst I was aware of the previous discussion listed above, I hadn't actually read it through, or at all in fact. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding independent sources?

But I have noted that the big airports and airlines are fairly well maintained but poorly sourced. Smaller airlines and airports not so much. I have seen many cases of sources dating from 2007 and 2012, which in this pandemic time are not really up to date. And I have many cases where airline QQ states that is flying on airport CC, where the airport replies wit:"huh, what?".The Banner talk 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is solved by now, so this can be closed as solved. The Banner talk 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Non-agreeable and unresponsive user

PlanespotterA320 has been reverting people without edit summaries and refusing to discuss a disagreement that arose between this user and me at here [126]. The conflict started when I found about the page De-Tatarization of Crimea created by this user. I was interested and noticed this ethnic group also had a navigation template (Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era) created by the same user. This article was listed on it but as "Detatarization of Crimea" instead of "De-Tatarization of Crimea". I did some changes which included using the latter form because the article was already titled that way so it just seemed logical to me [127]. This user manually reverted this change [128]. I manually reverted back, with the edit summary "per article title" as the user could have not realized (I hadn't realized they had created that article yet) [129] and I was reverted again without an edit summary [130].

Afterwards, I left a message on the template's talk page, but it wasn't responded. I then searched a bit more to see if this had been disputed before or something just to get some context and saw that this user had created that page and that a conflict over the article's title had already ocurred back in 2020 [131]. Notice that the user had already been reverting without edit summaries by then. Later in March 2020 there was a formal RM which passed and the article, originally created under "Detatarization of Crimea", was moved to "De-Tatarization of Crimea". I read some arguments and it appears that "De-Tatarization" is more common in the academic world, better as per English grammar, and recommended by Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes ('Hyphens [...] are used: [...] when prefixing a capitalized word, such as "un-Christian"'; the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea). Apart of all of this, when this dispute happened, the article was already titled that way.

At this point this situation seemed illogical to me so I reverted back [132]; the user did the same but this time with an edit summary stating "I'm the one that MADE this template and the article in question, stop making petty useless edits" (WP:OWN, already noted by another user in the talk page) [133]. I requested a WP:3O but it was declined and I was recommended to follow WP:DISCFAIL instead, which I believe I did properly. From now on I believe it is better for anyone to read the talk page instead, but basically, the user did mention some arguments as to why defend "Detatarization", to which I replied with some arguments as to why we shouldn't use this form, which again went unreplied.

This situation is so absurd to me that I've decided to go ahead and take measures to enforce this simply valid change. PlanespotterA320 has rejected to talk about the issue and stated they will not participate in any discussion anymore. Note the tone of the last message sent by them on the talk page. Please take measures so this situation is clarified. I will note that today this user, after two years, decided to try and unilaterally move the mainspace article De-Tatarization of Crimea back to "Detatarization" without any discussion and overruling the RM that approved this title [134]. This was reverted by another user [135]. Super Ψ Dro 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I will note that I manually reverted once again after this user sent their last message so far on the template talk page becuase I thought they had decided to leave the issue ("You can revert on the template if you feel like being a grammar nazi that badly, but I will NOT self-revert and I will NOT contribute to the prolonging of this discussion that should not ever exist. I am OUT and do not care to listen to this pettyness any further.") [136]. I was reverted again by the same user [137]. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Users who are not part of the Crimea Wikiproject taskforce has also been the subject of editwars on Russian Wikipedia) with no knowledge of the hyphenation controversy shouldn't be dictating how Crimea articles are titled. Those who come looking to start edit wars and pick and pick to interfere with actual content developers are not helpful to the goals of Wikipedia. There shouldn't even be such prolonged, drawn-out discussions over such pedantic tiny things in templates. The only reason I can imagine why the user bringing this up (Super Dromaeosaurus) is choosing to push for having such long and drawn-out process is to obstruct development of the remaining needed content on Crimean history (wasting my time by dragging me into such "discussions" again and again instead of sticking to their realm of Romanian history and letting me do my thing, ie, finish the redlinked articles in the template list). This is a longstanding problem on Wikipedia that has been exacerbated over the years - more time spent on petty talkpage arguments with people woh aren't even members of the respective wikiproject, less time writing and improving actual articles. Less respect to subject-matter experts, more subject-matter experts leave, more articles left unfinished/redlinks remain. If they at least bothered to be aware of the hypenation and capitalization controversy surrounding the word "tatar" or attempted to reach out to the people at crh wikipedia it would be one thing. But they haven't done that, the outsider decided that the Crimean template should be their way and decided to impose a burecratic process to push it nonstop. I will not discussion this further with people who are not project members, and I will revert below the limits of the editwar defintion (2 per 24 hours). But I will not respond to pings, or further calls for "discussion" with these blatant obstructionists impeeding my ability to MEANINGFULLY contribute to Wikipedia, and I once AGAIN call on them to either familiarize themselves with key parts of Crimean history before attempting to take sides or go be productive in a different part of the encyclopedia where they can make meaningful, productive contributions to the project that increase the availability of quality content instead of going around and picking fights with good editors. I should not have to reiterate that Crimean Tatars are NOT a subgroup of the ACTUAL Tatar people, but a completely separate, CRIMEAN people (more closely relted to the Gagauz or Azerbaijanis than actual Tatars or Bashkirs) who got CALLED TATAR by RUSSIANS (as a slur) and the name stuck (and has been a huge burden ever since, like with Ukaz 493. (Russians used to call all Muslims, from actual Tatars, to Bashkirs, to even Azerbaijanis "Tatars", but the name obviously didn't stick for all) In Crimean Tatar and Russian languages, there is strong opposition to capitalization of the tatar part of the defacto ethnonym, which is properly written as Qırımtatar, NOT Qırım-Tatar, not Qırım Tatar, not Qırım-Tatar). Of course, the user in question who actually wrote out "the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea" (which made my jaw drop) would know about the controversy over the very word tatar itself if they were a good-standing member of a Crimean task force wikiproject and bothered to read the available articles and materials about this very issue. The very use of the word "subgroup" in reference to the Crimean Tatar people here (and not a part of it, say, the mountain or coast dwellers) just goes to show just how little they know about Crimeanness and how they have no business attempting to make calls on how things related to Crimeanness are written. I doubt he/she would be very positive, responseful, or even respectful if I said that Romanians are a subgroup of Moldovans and insisted on having long petty discussions about Romanian matters based on my minimal/non-existance knowledge of Romanians.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We're in English-language Wikipedia, where English-language standards and not Russian ones apply. In Wikipedia, these types of controversies are usually disregarded as ugly as it might sound. "Transnistria" is not a very liked name in Transnistria, but Wikipedia still uses this name per WP:COMMONNAME, and so per WP:COMMONNAME is "de-Tatarization" seen as a better title than "detatarization" as it is more commonly used in sources. But I will admit on having poor knowledge on the Crimean Tatars and I apologize for referring to them as a Tatar subgroup. And I don't gain everything from stripping Wikipedia away from info about the Crimean Tatars. I've been here in Wikipedia for a while now, and I've met a diverse group of people with whom I've had many absurd disputes. The first time is okay, I can move on, but the tenth? Sorry, but no. I am pretty convinced my stance is supported by English Wikipedia policies, and I plan to act upon that. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. But as Super Ψ Dro said, what goes on in other projects and actually even the Simple English Wikipedia or English Wiktionary doesn't generally concern us. There's no requirement that anyone must be part of any wikiproject to participate in discussions about any thing that affects Wikipedia as a whole including stuff in general templates. Actually such a requirement in strongly against fundamental wikipedia policy. Nor is there any requirement that only content creators can participate in discussions. Any editor in good standing can participate in discussions on improving pages and being them more in line with our policies and guidelines. Expert participation is always welcome, but they will generally need to bring sources etc to demonstrate whatever they are saying rather than just expect others to trust them. I'd note that if something is a pedantic tiny thing then there is probably no reason to oppose a change that another editors brings a page more in line with our policies and guidelines. But if there is a reason then ultimately the editor opposing will need to adequately explain their reasoning. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I was told, I followed WP:DISCFAIL, precisely step 9, because before I made this report, the other user had stated they would not participate anymore in any discussion. Is this really a content dispute at this point? By the way, whether "detatarization" or "de-Tatarization" is correct or not was already decided at the 2020 RM on the article's talk page in question. Where else am I supposed to take this issue? To WP:AE, where the outcome will be the same as in the RM (because, why wouldn't it)? This issue was already decided, and "de-Tatarization" was shown to be a better title. I don't think we need reports and requests to change every single link to this article, because one user opposes this and refuses to explain their reasoning until an ANI report is filed. Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't take the issue ANYWHERE, or attempt to get further discussion AT ALL. You should DROP THE STICK and stick to your matters within your own purveiw. PERIOD. Stick to articles on things you have at least an elementary understanding of. Like other users pointed out, this place isn't even a good place for content disputes. So be on your merry way and stick to some Romania related articles instead of obstructing Crimean content (I have wasted over an hour that could have been spent writing the missing articles to address your comments, and have made it very clear that I do not wish to waste any more)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually you are the editor who is out of line here, not Super Dromaeosaurus. You are being argumentative, exclusionist, ignoring consensus, and being belligerent not to mention what at this point can only be willful WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT around the capitalization and hyphenation. At this point I’m rather close to blocking you right not for not being willing to edit in a collaborative environment and throwing around wording that makes it clear you are uninterested in cooperating with other editors. You are very clearly unaware of what wikipedias policies and guidelines are and unless you step back and look at what you are saying, apologize and do a 180 turn on this approach, you are going to be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just self-revert then. If you don't wanna waste more time into this, just do that. As you said on my talk page, you could expand the scope of the article. You could also rename it. But opposing a link (not even the article title, just a link), which contradicts the title of the article it is linking to, has not taken you anywhere. So just back off and self-revert. I don't even need apologies. My intention is not to make anyone feel humilliated. Plus, you'll save yourself from a block. I believe it's the most sensible action you can do right now. Super Ψ Dro 21:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How about simply changing the label to "Toponym renaming" in the template as a compromise? (and being by far the most prominent/obvious aspect of detatarization that lingers today)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Again please hold this discussion on the template talk page not here. Note that you seem to have misunderstood my comment. It was directed at both of you but mostly you. Super Ψ Dro started of the discussion with some brief mention of the content issue which was largely fine to help understand the background, but most of their message concentrated on your conduct that causes concern. You then came and didn't offer any reasonable defence of your conduct, instead made a lengthy post about the content dispute. You should continue the discussion on the talk page in good faith, stop reverting, and stop claiming people cannot participate because they aren't content creators or lack knowledge or whatever. I'd note that since the article has a certain title, you'd need to make a compelling argument for why we should say something else in the template. A compelling argument for article title being wrong is actually likely a very poor argument for doing something else in the template. Instead, it's a good reason to start a new RM and solve the actual problem. (If you feel the article is wrong but the community disagrees with you then generally you just have to accept that. There are some case where it's completely fine, thats what you need to demonstrate if you want to use a different title in the template.) Likewise, unless the link the template is only to a certain part of the article, in which case it probably should link to a subsection either directly or via a redirect, it's unlikely there is a good reason to have the link title only covering part of the article. Note this is intended as general advice so please don't reply with any arguments you have on what we should do, here. Instead take them to the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I should note this user keeps the same condescending tone as before [138]. Maybe it's time for a warning? Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  The user keeps this tone already for many years, here, on Commons, and on the Russian Wikipedia. This is my favorite example from several years ago, where she pretty much says she does not care about policies and is not going to listen to anyone.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Annette Maon

I would prefer not to bring an editor here but there conduct has been disturbing and seems to violate WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA along with concerns they are either WP:TROLLING or running an experiment on the community.

Upon seeing Special:Diff/1066719606 , I reviewed their history to see what the issue was and ran across edit summaries and talk page with accusations of WP:OWN and cabal on Elon Musk page: [Special:Diff/1066674606]], Special:Diff/1066681498, Special:Diff/1066687551, Special:Diff/1066707842.

I also discovered and CSDed a essay that had BLP violations and triggered [[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annette_Maon#User%3AAnnette_Maon%2FA_female_paper_on_NPOV%7C this talk page discussion]].

Which also triggered their self-report about BLP violations at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting and lead to further redactions. As well as concerning comments such as,  Special:Diff/1067110101, Special:Diff/1067195235.

Additional  concerns with their conduct on Talk:Orson Scott Card where they seem to believe the community is involved in intentionally misleading readers: Special:Diff/1050651411.

Numerous editors have let much of this go and I was inclined to see if the last few days have made a better wikipedian but the latest user talk post continues their belief that the community (and is hiding what can reasonably construed as  a personal attack on me for initiating deletion of their policy violating essay) is out to get them: Special:Diff/1067298640 and repeated at Special:Diff/1067712282 which is now a self fulfilling prophecy in that this posting is why I am turning to ANI.

In close, this editor's conduct needs correction before further BLP or civility violations occur.  That they try to be vague and sneaky when attacking other editors does not excuse the behavior nor are their repeated assertions of paranoia(often struck out), which may lend to WP:CIR being an issue.Slywriter (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by 93.22.38.147

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

Changed "Persian" to "Arab". The part was sourced.

Changed "Persian" of Arab descent" to "Arab of Persia" Proceeded to do it again later [139]

Removed the sourced claim of this figure possibly being Persian, kept the part about him being possibly Arab. Refers the author of the removed source as a "propagandist"

Removed mention of the figure being Persian and the 3 sources that supported it

Etc etc.

Based on this, user seems to be on a WP:TENDENTIOUS mission and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

•  IP blocked 72 hours for edit-warring. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Sauraved

User:Sauraved, in their first month of editing, has racked up five escalating talk page warnings from four editors for various types of disruption. These include manipulating direct quotations, altering reliably sourced figures, and blanking content without explanation. They have not responded, asked for help, or changed their behavior. Their disruptive editing continues, most recently with this edit, in which they changed "12-13 million" to "20 million" in contradiction of the cited sources. It is time for a block of at least a few days to get their attention and dissuade them from further disruption. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that I have just reverted edits by this user here, where they have inflated population numbers across the infobox, without any attempt to update the references. So who knows where these numbers come from, they look suspiciously made-up. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Spencer for 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if disruption continues after block is up; 31 hours is my usual starting length for unsourced changes that aren't blatant vandalism/spam/etc. Spencer^T•C 06:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2

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

The result of this discussion is that Rlink2 is warned for high-speed editing. This thread has been open for more than 6 days, and I believe the outcome is clear enough that further discussion will not change it. The dispute revolves around two distinct aspects of the behavior of Rlink2 (talk · contribs), which I will now summarize.

1. There was a claim that Rlink2 is a sockpuppet of Rotlink (talk · contribs). At this discussion, there is no consensus to take any action regarding this claim.
   • Rotlink was a user who was blocked in 2013 for running an unapproved bot called RotlinkBot (talk · contribs); the primary activity of this unapproved bot was adding links to the web archiving service archive.is, which Rotlink was the owner of (see [140]). Rotlink's block led to a lengthy RfC which resulted in archive.is being blacklisted from Wikipedia from 2013 to 2016, when a new RfC overturned the blacklisting.
   • Rlink2's username bears remarkable similarity to Rotlink's, and it is doubly coincidental the majority of their edits relate to links to web archives, including the Wayback Machine, archive.today (the successor to archive.is), as well as a new archive site called "ghostarchive.org", which can archive YouTube videos (see e.g. [141]). In November 2021, about two months after Rlink2 registered their account, they filed their first BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rlink2 Bot, which is a bot task relating to archive.is links. Further, it is interestingly coincidental that, like Rotlink, there have been complaints that Rlink2 may be running an unapproved bot based on their high rate of editing.
   • Although some editors agreed that these coincidences were suspicious, I do not see any consensus at this discussion that Rlink2 should be blocked as a sockpuppet. Some editors noted that the lengthy gap of seven years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit makes it difficult to prove the connection to a satisfactory level. Some editors left comments stating that they believe WP:SPI would be a more suitable venue to discuss this possible connection, since the editors there are more experienced with investigating sockpuppetry.
2. There were claims that Rlink2 may be running an unapproved bot or is otherwise not paying attention to their edits, based on the speed with which they edit. There is merit to some of these claims.
   • Since registering an account less than five months ago, Rlink2 has made more than 200,000 edits.
   • Rlink2 states that their edits are not fully automated, but rather semi-automated with the use of the tool AutoWikiBrowser (AWB), which requires human users to review all edits before submitting.
   • There is consensus in this discussion that the speed of Rlink2's editing has indeed been too fast. High-speed edits are often problematic for the reasons stated in WP:MEATBOT: often quality is sacrificed in the pursuit of quantity, and if there are issues with the high-speed edits, the time required to fix them would be more immense. Some editors also complained that high-speed edits flood watchlists, which may disrupt the work of other editors. MEATBOT allows editors to be sanctioned as if they were running an unauthorized bot, even if they were merely using a semi-automated tool like AWB, if their use of the semi-automated tool has caused errors that give the impression that they are not fully paying attention to their edits.
   • In light of this, some editors argued that Rlink2's access to the AWB tool should be revoked. I'm afraid I see no consensus for this. Rlink2 has acknowledged that the high speed of their edits is a valid concern, including a concession that they sometimes do not fully supervise their AWB edits, instead blindly submitting them—see [142] (I admitted that sometimes I don't review all of them (particualy, there were times where I didn't scroll down in the AWB window) ...). At [143], Rlink2 committed to slowing down, to closely reviewing all edits before submitting them, and to being more careful, if it is agreed that these are relevant issues. In my view, the consensus here is that these are indeed relevant issues.

In light of these factors, I believe the most appropriate outcome of this discussion is that RLink2 be warned for high-speed editing. A consequence of this warning is that further problems in this area may lead to more severe sanctions in the future. This discussion was not clear about any numerical speed limits, but it is clear that Rlink2's current speed—about 10 edits per minute—is too fast. If I were Rlink2, to avoid further problems, from now on I would start conservatively by only submitting AWB edits at a speed that would be reasonable if a human were doing this by hand—if anything faster is required, then out of an abundance of caution, I would file a WP:BRFA. (This is not to say that Rlink2 is required to edit at this speed; this is merely my personal advice.)

For disclosure, my only prior involvement with Rlink2 was in a purely administrative capacity (I blocked one of their bots because it was malfunctioning). Mz7 (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

• Revoke AWB access from account for flooding. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How am I flodding? I go at 10 edits a minute, which is consistent with other editors. Let me know how I am supposed to use the tool and what rates are acceptable. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed 37 most-recent edits and found problems with 10 of them. That's only 73%. You do need to slow down. ~Kvng (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I already admitted that sometimes there were times I didn't review all my edits, but I will from now on.

Technically, if we are following mathematical laws, it needs to be a complete random 37 edits you picked. You picked the last 37 edits I made regarding bare refs, so your method of sampling is flawed. That percentage may or may not reflective of my entire edits. Also, when I said I review 99% of edits, I didn't literally mean 99%. My response to the rest of the "problematic" edits is on the current version of the BRFA.

However even if the percentage is low, it doesn't justify my mistakes. I always try to make sure I make the highest quality of edits. Out of those ten you linked, only one or two I think was a big enough problem that it shouldn't be put through while using AWB. For example, for some of those examples, you complained about generic titles, but the URL itself was also fairly generic. Also, if the link was dead, I saved anyway with a Wayback link, regardless of the title (because the link was dead, so it needed to be upgraded to a citation template for the archive anyway ).

In one of the examples, you complained that I turned <ref>http://www.pembina.com/about-us/our-operations/</ref> into <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pembina.com/about-us/our-operations/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140929031141/http://www.pembina.com/About-Us/Our-Operations |archive-date=2014-09-29 |title=Pembina - Our Operations}}</ref> . However, the title has the same information as the URL, and the link was dead anyway, so even if the title is wrong, now the article is pointing to a working link. Would you rather have a broken bare link or a link that works but maybe has a nondescriptive title (in this case, the title looks OK to me, but maybe there are other examples where it is not).

One of the other diffs you complained was that I turned <ref>http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place</ref> into <ref>{cite web |url=http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129031902/http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place |archive-date=2014-11-29 |title=Pembina Place}}</ref> . In this case, you have a stronger point that maybe the title is less informative than the original URL. But keep in mind the link was dead, and the Wayback link was there. A dead citation is basically the same as having no citation at all. Hence, that is a good reason to let it through even with the debatably generic title.

Here is an example of a good diff, <ref>https://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa</ref> into <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509224024/http://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa |archive-date=2015-05-09 |title=How We're Run - Our Governance {{!}} SSAFA}}</ref> . Not only was the link dead, and rescued with Wayback, the title is more informative than the URL. Yeah, some people like Ssilvers will say the "website" parameter should be split, and I have been working that in, but as multiple other editors said, we must not let perfect be enemy of the good. Wikipedia is based on incremental improvement. Stubs don't become FAs in one edit, there is always room to improve the citation later on.

Off topic question but when is visual editor coming for the noticeboard? Someone here would know the answer to that. It can be hard to follow along in the text editor for a large page with lots of changes.

Rlink2 (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Revoke AWB access including the bot. I am fairly convinced these are the same individuals, and I believe they have some sort of stake in the archive sites (archive.today and ghostarchive.org) they are performing automated work in regards to, if not being the outright owners. I believe the main account's current AWB activity looks to be the unapproved activity proposed as a second bot activity here. Activity on eswiki should also be noted. The four RFCs on archive.is should be reviewed for historical content, including admission of Rotlink of either owning or being heavily involved in the development of Archive.is and the 2013 botting issue that resulted in over 30 cross wiki blocks. More action may be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "relationship", if anything, I have been in talks with Mark Graham of the Wayback machine in terms of possible collaboration, and we have many editors on here already working with the Internet Archive. Supposing I was related to archive.today (or otherwise), I don't think "getting" at me for that aspect alone is helpful because we have people working for archive.org as well. I have a metheology for picking archive sites to use, we have a limited amount of archive sites, and some of them do stuff that the others can't. If Wayback can't archive a site, but something else can, I don't think it's right to say I'm connected when there is a clear explanation for why I do what I do. For example, archive.today can bypass paywalls, archive.org can't. And ghostarchive.org can do Youtube videos, which up until very recently archive.org could not. And you seem to be missing my bare ref fixes that also use web.archive.org. You omit that part of the argument as well.

Regardless, I have spent a lot of time on non archiving matters, such as fixing bare refs. There are clear differences between my and Rotlink's account (such as the fact Rotlink doesn't appear to be a native English speaker). Rotlink only added archive links, from the look of it. If the community realizes that my time spent archiving refs is not appreciated, I will stop doing it. Maybe even revoking AWB access is the right choice, even though I do review every edit I make with it. But I do not think a full on block is required. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks. I know it sounds maybe a bit hard to believe, but I have no relation to Rotlink or any other past editor. For those that want to believe other wise, all I can really say is that I am willing to stop any work with alternative archive sites if that is what you all want. I didn't have any plans with alternate archive link repair for a while, since my editing plans involved filling bare refs, and then filling in the titles for "Archived Copy" (see Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title) when that was done. Both of these efforts have nothing to do with any of the alternate archive sites, and would/is taking months of my time. If using other archive sites results in COI accusations and stressful ANI threads, it is not worth the time and effort for me to keep using them, to be honest. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: when you say that Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, are you speaking with your checkuser hat on? Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, solely based on naming, behavior, and strongly overlapping interests. Izno (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Firefangledfeathers 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

• Immediately revoke AWB access and block: This user is using their account to operate an undisclosed bot. Their edits indicate that they are a meatbot. Furthermore, there is no possible chance that they are properly analysing the truly absurd number of edits that they are making. All of this is incredibly problematic, even ignoring the probable ban evasion and conflict of interest. Considering the sheer amount of disruption and other questionable actions, a block is warranted in this situation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, sometimes I do sacafice quality for speed, especially before the new database dumps come out. This is the exception though, not the rule. And sometimes I have days off, yesterday was MLK Day, so I have more time to edit. It wasn't non stop, there were clear breaks however. I don't edit when I'm sleeping, and I don't edit when I'm at my workplace. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't have a list of bad links, I wuoldn't be constantly reverting mistakes. Also note that everytime someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I respond instantly. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't be able to respond that quickly to messages since I would be away from the computer. Rlink2 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've noticed this user prolifically across my watchlist recently. The sheer number of edits is astounding, and indicates either a meatbot or a literal unauthorized bot. Either way, it is clear these edits are done with little or no care for their accuracy or helpfulness. To give just one example, I've noticed the addition of a template [144] which, if we go to its template page, appears to do nothing and was created on January 12th by Rlink2. I am not a template expert, but I can't see the point of adding this template which appears to do nothing to thousands of articles. And even if it does serve some sort of purpose, the total lack of documentation is wrong and must be corrected so we have some clue as to what the hell the template does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: The purpose of that template is to mark bare PDFs, since the title of those are not so easy to extract. I should have added some documentation, but didn't, sorry. The purpose is for me and other editors to categorize and then go through the PDFs that are bare. I really did (and still do) like your train articles. Rlink2 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see it does serve a purpose (and that you like my articles), please add some documentation though. I am not convinced you are related to Rotlink, particularly considering the difference in English proficiency. Fighting linkrot is important, but I think I speak for many when I say you need to be more careful with your mass edits. I have compared AWB use to a B-52 bombing run: it can be very powerful, but if you call in the bombing run in the wrong place, the cleanup is massive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Trainsandotherthings:. I am just stressed right now and your feedback made my day.

If the issue is with my choice of archive site, just say so. If the result of the ANI thread is that I shall no longer do link work with any archive site that isn't archive.org I will happily follow that. I do way way more than just archive stuff. Wayback is the gold standard of archive sites, and it is always the one I prefer the first. My work will not be seriously impacted if I am prevented from using any site that isn't archive.org, it just means longer do anything with preventing linkrot with sites that do not work with the Wayback machine, which, thanks to the amazing team at Archive.org, is rapidly becoming fewer and fewer. In the mean time, however, those links will unfortunately have to rot. The Wayback team is amazing and I am sure they will get to fixing all the issues, but in the mean time we should not prevent the usage of other archive sites until the Wayback team can fix the sites not working properly. But this is up to the community to decide. I was and have been taking a break from archiving "no-Wayback" sites anyway.

If the issue is that I go too fast, I will make sure to slow down. Yes, I have been faster in recent days, but usually I go at 10 edits or less which I think is OK.

If the issue is that I don't review my edits all the time, I will begin reviewing my edits all the time (which i already do for the most part).

If the issue is that I need to be more careful, I will be more careful. Yes, I have made mistakes with AWB before. Just look at the Citevar situation. I responded by cleaning it all up. We are all humans, imperfect. I propose that if my AWB access is revoked, it is revoked for a limited amount of time (maybe a week? month?) because I think I do important work with it. My edits have been a net good, based on community feedback. And keep in note that even Izno said editor's talk page is largely without issue so far meaning that there is some level of support and consensus for my work. I respect each and every one of the editors in this thread, and I hate to see misconception burn bridges. Rlink2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was myself dragged over the coals at ANI for the better part of a month in November 2021. It was an experience I would not wish upon anyone but the most disruptive editors or vandals. It is why I usually refrain from commenting here at all, but as I said earlier I've seen your name pop up a lot on my watchlist so I felt the need to comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm currently leaning towards revoke access per the issues brought up by trainsandotherthings. Adding {{Bare URL PDF}} to enough pages that it got semi-protected seems a bit irresponsible. This is the type of thing that should've been brought up at {{Bare URL inline}}'s talk page or WikiProject Inline Templates before it got added to 1,532 different pages.
  This user certainly has potential though, so I am a bit torn. If access is revoked, I do think there should be a clear path for them to regain access. For the record, I have also not looked into the Rotlink connection at all. My comment is just a reflection on the AWB usage rather than socking accusations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @MJL: I see nothing at all irresposnible about Rlink2's creation of {{Bare URL PDF}}. It is analogous to {{Bare URL inline}}, but helpfully provides a distinctive designator for PDF bare URLs, which pose a particular problem because there is no reliable way for tools to extract metadata from PDFs. It would have been better to complete the template before deploying it, but that oversight is a very minor issue, and easily remedied.

  If you or any other editor actually discussed this with Rlink2, you would them open, attentive, and well-seized of the issues. This issue would have been resolved promptly.

  It is very sad to see something like this used as "evidence for the prosecution", when no effort has been made to have the usual discussions about whether it is actually a problem. (Hint: it's not a problem. It's a productive addition). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS: I have completed and documented {{Bare URL PDF}}. It may not be the perfect solution for PDF format WP:Bare URLs, but I thank @Rlink2 for taking this useful step forward.

  If editors want further discussion of how we can make progress on identifying and fixing the backlog of 47,887 untagged PDF-format bare URL refs (as he 20220101 database dump), this is not the appropriate venue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As an editor who fired a rocket at Rlink2 at an early stage (for an error that turned out have been made by WorldCat), I too began by being suspicious of their motives. I also had a sharp intake of breath to see so many of the pages I watch come up with bare URL flags. It was annoying that I missed them being added in the first place but we should not shoot the messenger. Some editors have complained at talk:Rlink2 that just to add title= is inadequate and want to see a full set of metadata: it seems that they would rather have a bare URL than a basic one. Personally I have found it a useful prompt to go get the metadata since invariably the site needs to be deconstructed by human eye. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Blocking their AWB access is being an enemy of the good. Maybe they should be admonished for employing 'almost a bot' but let's not get on our high horse about it. Does Counsel for the Prosecution propose that CitationBot be shut down too? If not, why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Revoke AWB access as above, and launch SPI into possible sock puppetry/block evasion. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  If Rotlink was blocked in 2013, it seems unlikely there would be any technical evidence left for a CU inquiry. A gap of 7 years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit would also seem to make any other attempt at proving socking/block evasion pretty well impossible too. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Congratulate Rlink2 for excellent work improving articles at a steady rate. Any bot-like process will leave imperfections behind due often to pre-existing and unpredictable errors in articles. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Oculi, I agree. Rlink2 is doing great work, and should be congratulated, not hounded.

  This thread is an depressingly good illustration of the principle that no good deed should go unpunished. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Woah there! This discussion is deeply unpleasant to read. It seems like a pile-on.

The complaint is based on a supposition that @Rlink2 is a) a block-evading sock, and b) somehow in cahoots with archive sites. No actual evidence has been offered for either assertion other than a similarity of usernames. Rlink2 denies both, and nobody has added any further evidence.

The choice of this venue for a socking allegation is very quite strange, because Izno is a checkuser, so should know that suspected sock cases should be brought to WP:SPI. Why has that not been done here?

As to the alleged "collusion" with archive sites, no evidence has been offered of any such collusion. And what harm could be done by any such collaboration? Archive.is is an acceptable archive site, so why this rush to monster an editor who archives some pages there? If some editors want to re-open the debate about whether to use Archive.is, they should open an RFC rather than monstering an editor who archives refs.

As the OP notes, Rlink2's AWB work is mostly uncontroversial, accurate filling of bare links, and issues which arise out of that being discussed openly and amicably on their talk page. Their edits have made a huge contribution to clearing the backlog of bare URL refs, and I am shocked to see that valuable work being brought to a halt on the basis of a set of wild accusations.

Nobody seems to have identified any actual harm being done by Rlink2. So what is this drama actually about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to BRFA. My recent experiences there have been of very poor communication speed, poor assessment and being subjected to gratuitous personal attack and insults which no BAG member was wiling to challenge.

Until BAG can reform itself by make it less of a hazing exercise and showing the maturity to genuinely review its bad decisions, editors are well-advised to stay clear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with BHG. I would like to see any sockpuppetry accusations handled at WP:SPI in accordance with the burden of evidence there, as it's usually done. As for the bot use, that's a separate issue. While personally I'm not too happy about meatbots, this noticeboard has time and time again failed to revoke AWB access for editors running actual meatbots. While I'd like to see a consistently harder stance on that, I do find it difficult to believe the tally above for revoking access is solely due to the editing behaviour. archive.today is a perfectly acceptable and popular archive site.

All the OP has said is that and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question -- there is no evidence presented for the assertion, and I'm not going to go digging around for evidence myself. I'd like to see some evidence presented here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader took the words right out of my mouth, honestly. All this infighting could instead be used to advance progress on Rlink Bot Task 2. The description and the goals have been slightly changed (for example, the bot will find bare refs itself, it won't need submissions), but for the most part I think it is best for everyone if we focus on advancing the bot task. The goal was always to get the bot task approved. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: it seems to me that unless Izno can present some actual evidence to support their allegation that Rlink2 is the owner of an archive site, they should strike the allegation and apologise.

Same with the allegation of sockpuppetry: Izno should take their case to SPI and accept the outcome of that established process, or strike it and apologise.

Editors should not be subjected to unsupported allegations which are the taken by other editors as grounds for sanctions, which is what has happened here.

And given that Ser Amantio di Nicolao remains unsanctioned for about 4 million edits with a very badly-run unauthorised bot (he's too lazy to even use meaningful edit summaries, and that's the least of the problems), it would be grossly unjust to sanction Rlink2 for a well-run AWB task on a scale several orders of magnitude smaller. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The archive wars/RFCs are long behind us and I think I speak for all of us that we don't need to restart those. The issue of if we should use archive.today is completely seperate from me, if that is a discussion you want to entertain that is fine, don't take it out on me like BHG said. Like I've said before, I will happily accept not being able to work with any archive site that isn't archive.org, if your issue is that I somehow own these archival websites, and the community says they do not value my work with those alternate archive sites. If I was the owner of any of these sites I would not be making that offer. So that alone invalidates the supposed allegation of ownership.

Regarding name similarity and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I should note that some of these users with similar usernames also share the same interests (for example, two of the usernames just so happen to be 'crats, and two of other similar usernames belong to two different amazing admins who both are intrested in sports topics). It's not some crazy, out of the world, one time thing, for someone to have a similar name to another, and for them to have similar interests. I think that if you want to say I someone else, you should have more evidence than just a similar username and having similar interests. Rlink2 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).

I am however willing to answer the question: I chose to bring this discussion here because I was prepared to block without consultation and wanted to give the party of interest and broader community an opportunity to respond to the issues presented before issuing the block, because a) SPI does not work that way these days (generally), and b) issues other than whether or not the user is block-evading were presented, namely, the user is clearly editing at high speed without review on his non-bot account, some edits of which cross into territory on their bot's unclosed BRFA.

As for collusion:

1. The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC.
2. The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.

As for behavior:

1. Same exact topic area in which the former account was blocked: namely, archive URLs added by bot
   1. Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it.
   2. The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other area, which usually indicates a returning editor from the get go.
   3. Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites (to wit, several replacements of .is to .today in the early editing history of the Rlink2 account, something I believe the Rotlink account also was interested in)
2. Basically the same name
3. A CU I trust has checked the data from the last time Rotlink edited (there was some) versus Rlink 2 today (without my prompting) and while he didn't find that they matched, he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily. (Likely similar in behavior to the case listed in the RFC, though I haven't checked myself.)
4. There is at least one item of offwiki material that links Rlink 2 to the website directly, which I am happy to send to my colleagues on ArbCom (it is not particularly damning, but it is yet another piece of a "this is a sock" puzzle).

Now, you are free to argue that this is a returning editor doing good work such that "time-served" is the appropriate response (NB our sockpuppetry and block evasion policies do not allow this when it was in the same area as the previous sanctions, but you may argue it), or you may argue that there is insufficient evidence to believe this is the same editor (I am convinced, but you may not be), both of which are part of the reason I invited discussion at ANI rather than at SPI. But even ignoring the socking angle:

1. The editor has clearly edited in a high speed fashion without review of his changes and which cross over into an unapproved BRFA's scope.

So at the very least, I would expect a followup on that aspect from this forum, which is the appropriate forum regardless. Izno (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them We have people paid by the Internet Archive on Wikipedia. Why is that necessarily a problem?

The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.. Archive.today was approved for use on enwiki in RFC #4. If the site is approved by the community, I don't see the problem with doing link maintenance.

The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other subject area This is not true. I have done stuff like recent change patrol, and I am working on bare ref fixing. I have partcipated in village pump and citation bot discussions, multiple times. You have even tagged me in some of them. I have even done some small article work, which I plan on continuing. I can link to diffs of each of these.

Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites is not true. I've done work with more than one archive website. For example, all the bare ref fixing was using web.archive.org. I did some edits that were related to filling in Trappist's "archived copy" category that had web.archive.org as an archive link. Even the BRFA that was approved has archive.org stuff in there in there.

The archive.is to today thing was one thing I've done earlier in my edit history, but I've moved on from that since almost all the links have already been converted to ".today". If I was here only for converting the archive.today links why would I be still editing?

Regarding Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it. I didn't think that 10 edits a minute was high speed. And I was going "high speed" because I was using AWB, there was an explination for that. There is a difference between AWB and unauthorized bot. And I did have a BRFA filed.

Basically the same name I have addressed a rebuttal above. There are many Wikipedians with the same name and work in the same topic area. I don't think that means anything.

and while he didn't find that they matched I'm glad we've cleared that up, so technically I am not Rotlink. he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily yes I do use a VPN/proxy, its not some uncommon thing these days, the climate back then in 2013 and now are very different. People are more worried about their privacy. DuckDuckGo, Protonmail, etc.. are all doing well because there is a large section of the population who is becoming more aware of privacy in the digital world. An IP address is like a social security number. I wouldn't want to give out my SSN to everyone I meet, would you? IP privacy is become very important these days, the WMF is hiding unregistered IP addresses for a reason. The existance and usage of VPNs in 2021 is way bigger than the existence of VPNs in 2013, there are alot of people using them. So I don't think that's a big deal.

high speed fashion without review of his changes I admitted that sometimes I don't review all of them (particualy, there were times where I didn't scroll down in the AWB window), but I never said I never reviewed any of the changes. I did, bascially almost all the time. And while the bare ref BRFA was unapproved, the very act of fixing bare refs had consensus.

same area as the previous sanctions All this seems to be predicated on the fact that I supposedly only do work with one archive site, which is not the case like exlpained before. And I've already offered to drop any work with non archive.org sites, if that is what you and community want. Also, you seem to miss the fact that there can be a difference between owner and fan. Archive.today is a popular site, one of the top 100 sites on the internet, of course they will have fans. Any popular band, musician, thing etc. has fans that are overly interested in them and are fans of what they do. It is not implausible that there are other people that like archive.today.

Like I said, my usage of an alternate archive site for just a few "non-Wayback" sites is not worth all the attention. I say this with honesty, that I am not Rotlink. The primary causes of all these "reasons" you give are simply due to overlapping intrests. For example, if I am intrested in fixing archive links, of which there are many, how else am I supposed to do it? Of course semi-automated or a bot approval tools are necessary. Note that other editors who are intrested in internet archival, and someone else also had a bot to convert .is to .today. However, some people, like you, may permanently think that I am Rotlink. Given the cirmustances, I would completely understand, and I respect your opinion and I see where you come from and why people would think I am Rotlink. I personally don't think it even matters if I'm the owner of archive.today (I'm not), seeing how archive.today is an approved archive website. To that, I can really only say if people are somehow convinced I own archive.today, I'll happily stop any linkwork with the site. I have other stuff to do here. Other than that, I really don't have much else to say.

Here is some reasons to believe that I am not Rotlink.

1. Different English proficiency - someone else also pointed this out. Don't CU's have some language tool that allows them to analyze people's tone and voice? Why don't you use it now?
2. Engaging in other tasks - explained above, I do other stuff than just archiving. I did recent change patrol, and I have an article I'm intrested in developing in my draft space. Rotlink only did archived links, he seemingly shown no interest in content creation. I think the conerstone of ANY wiki is content. All of the archiving stuff, just supports the content creation. If there was some sort of community decision that said I couldn't do work with AWB or archiving until I have at least one GA article for nomination, I would follow that happily.
3. Offered to stop work with archive.today - If i was the owner of archive.today, which is an approved site, why am I giving up my ability to work with it so easily? The owner of archive.today would instead push and probably still be sucessful in being able to work with his site, given the status of RFC 4.
4. Ability to listen to the community - this ties in to what I was saying before, I am always open to consensus. If we did an archive.today RFC 5 and the result was to ban the site, I would still be around. When archive.today was banned the first time Rotlink left the WP communnity IIRC.
5. Experimentation with way more than 2 or 3 archive sites - Early on in my tenure here you'll also notice I tried other archive sites then what I used, such as "etched.page" and "archive.st". However, I did not find those sites particularly helpful for my use case. If I am banned from doing archive.today work, may have to look into these sites, but seeing how "etched.page" is some cryptocurrency thing, and you need to pay to archive a webpage there, I think it would be even more controversial given the talk of crypto in the news recently. The point is, I have no real bias towards any of the archive sites. I just use what I think is right of the job.
6. Do not edit 24/7 or exhbit the hallmarks of an unapproved bot Looking at Rotlinks time card, the account was editing 24/7. I was always exhibiting some sort of supervision with my edits, and it shows because I don't edit 24/7. No one can be awake for that long. With AWB, I always responded to people basically the instant they left a message on my talk page. That wouldn't be possible with an unapproved bot running unsupervised. I reverted erroneous edits all the time, meaning that there was some sort of supervision. The level of supervision is debatable. But it was certainly there in some sort.
7. Failure to look at how the archving may benefit my wiki status - It could be argued that my work with archive sites actually has nothing to do with the sites, but to increase my position on enwiki. For example, converting all the links from .is to .today is a great way to get to 500/30 (EC protection) and inrease your edit count in general. Adding and fixing archive links is a simple and easy is a good way to get "reputation points", increase your edit count, gain trust and permissions at any wiki. It's equivelent to fixing spelling mistakes. It is then easy to branch out into other more pressing matters (like editng protected articles, creating new ones, etc.) You didn't consider this aspect of it though.
8. I am not placing archive.today or any archive site other than archive.org on a higher pedestal. Here is this example: There are many fans of Olivia Rodrigo editing the Olivia Rodrigo article. There are people obseesed with Olivia Rodrigo, they wear her merch, buy all her music ticket concerts. However, it becomes a problem when they push biased points of views, or prefer their own opinion over others (POV). We have rules for that WP:NPOV. Why are COI editors asked to make a request on the talk page? Because if they edit directly, there is a high chance of POV pushing. Similarly, I am a fan of all the archive sites. I am not putting archive.today on a higher pedestal however. I don't treat it any higher than I do with archive.org. Archive.today is for sites where archive.org does not work. You have not addressed the issue of archive.org not dealing with certain sites.

If you go ahead with a block, I'm not the one to beg and beg. I'll ask for WP:SO and maybe a community review of the block, and I hope it'll be offered to me, but if not, I'll just have to accept my unlucky fate. I wouldn't want to work in a community where everyone thinks I'm evil and bad just because I supposdedly own an approved archive website, which many enjoy and use. I did enjoy my work here, was wonderful to meet many new people. As Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 said, I tried. In the end, I did. Rlink2 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not be placing a block now given the contention here and the fact I was the original person bring the concern, but that does not mean you should not continue to be involved in this discussion, as another admin may do so without further warning. Izno (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no plans to leave this discussion. I think it's good we keep everything in one place. And I'm glad you chose ANI to voice your concerns where everyone can speak. That way people can see the evidence and the whole story. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: thank you for finally presenting some assertions of evidence in support of your claim. It's a pity that several of them are demonstrably false (such as "has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites" and "hasn't edited in any other area"), but at least you made your case as you saw it. That is what you should have done at the outset.

However, this comment by you is shameful: Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).. As a checkuser, you should be very well aware that WP:SPI is the forum for examining claims of sockpuppetry. This explicitly stated as policy at WP:HSOCK:

If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

Note that the policy does not offer ANI (or any other forum) as alternative venue. So tell me: did you, as a checkuser, consciously choose to ignore the policy which you are entrusted to uphold? Or were you not even aware of the policy? Or is there some other reason for your breach policy? Given the tools available to a checkuser, I am very alarmed at the possibility that you may have been unaware of policy.

This matters because a) WP:SPI has a structure for assessing claims of sockpuppetry, and b) WP:SPI is a centralised venue which is monitored by editors who have experience of assessing such claims. I cannot know your intentions in bringing the claim here, but it is clear that the effect of bringing your claims here is to evade proper scrutiny.

Your dismissal as an ad hominem of my complaint about your misuse of procedure and breach of policy is disgraceful. WP:ADMINACCT applies here: you wanted an editor sanctioned, and in doing so you have a responsibility to follow policy and justify your actions. Here is the relevant section in full:

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

Instead of justifying or revising your policy-defiant choice to making an SPI complaint in the wrong venue and without any evidence, you chose to hide behind the shield of a wholly bogus allegation that criticism of your admin/checkuser actions is an ad hominem. That is not just an evasion of your responsibility to justify your actions; it is a nasty attempt to smear me for making legitimate, policy-based criticism. Such smear tactics are deeply uncivil in any editor, and unacceptable in an admin. Please behave much better.

As to the substance of the evidence you have belatedly presented, some parts of it are demonstrably false, and most of it seems to me to be weak and circumstantial. I am particularly troubled that use of a VPN proxy is being held against an editor, because it seems to me to be a common and wholly reasonable practice. You may disagree about that, but if you want to pursue this complaint, then for goodness sake: follow policy, and take it to SPI, where it can be properly scrutinised.

And are you really sure that publicly disclosing at ANI that fact of VPN proxy usage, without going through SPI processes, is compatible with the procedural policy Wikipedia:CheckUser? It seems to me to be a possible breach of WP:CUPRIVACY.

I AGF that you honestly believe you have a reasonable complaint against Rlink2. But the way you have pursued that complaint is most unreasonable. I am minded to open an ANI thread about your own misconduct here, but I hope that you will reconsider and make that unnecessary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually discussed with multiple other administrators before bringing it here, so, no, I was decidedly not attempting to avoid scrutiny, never mind that ANI reaches more watchers than SPI, not fewer. I could as easily have filed at SPI (well, would have had to add the set of behaviors at the open rather than the close as you suggest) which, if I were a betting man, would have had to settle it on the merits of the behavior (the technical evidence was likely to be useless for making a direct connection to a decade-blocked account), and the usual SPI admins probably would have taken my connection and run with it. All of this even if should were language that indicates a requirement rather than (strong, as it is policy) suggestion. (must is such requiring language.)

An ad hominem is the fallacy basing an argument on something about the person you are discussing with rather than on the statements provided by that person or the facts of the situation. A statement Our policy says you should have taken this to SPI is fine, a statement You are a checkuser and you should have taken it to SPI as a result is not. Hence, your comment was an ad hominem as a factual statement (rather than some attempt to smear you; I have no interest in such a thing). Now, I continued on to discuss why I had done it, so I actually fully answered your question rather than dismissed it out of hand, since the root question was reasonable.

I believe it was not a breach of CUPRIVACY as the statement was in sufficiently broad terms: nothing identifying the user and nothing about the specific IP addresses used (the details of which I have not seen in fact). Separately, the CU who ran the check verified that he thought this was an reasonable statement to make public. (Regardless, this generality is routinely seen in the context of SPI, so if there is an issue here, it is a broad rather than specific one.)

Thanks for your comments. Izno (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: thanks for the tone of most of your reply. But it is sad that you still sticking by your false claim that I made an ad hominem attack.

Your policy error was that a) you offered no evidence in your initial post; b) you brought your complaint to ANI rather than SPI, as required by policy. That is a criticism of your actions, to which you should have responded in good grace rather. Your checkuser privileges are highly relevant, because as a holder of those privileges you are required to work within checkuser policies, so you have a duty to know and apply the policy. If noting the specific responsibilities of someone who has special privileges is labeled as an ad hominem attack, then accountability is impossible.

I ask you again to withdraw that claim.

As to the rest ... well if a bunch of weak circumstantial claims which include at least three demonstrable falsehoods would have led to a block at SPI, then gawd 'elp us. I had assumed that SPI worked to much higher standards than that.

What I see in Rlink2 is a highly productive editor who is doing excellent work helping to resolve a long-standing problem of WP:Bare URLs, but is being hounded for it. Why on earth have you and that undisclosed group of other admins had these secret discussions to try to stop that good work? Why did you not attempt to discuss these issues with Rlink2 before coming to ANI, as requested at the top of this page?

The only part of your complaint of misconduct (other than the tenuous claims of sockpuppetry) which has any substance is the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. But if you really concerned about that issue, why on earth pick on Rlink2 rather than Ser Amantio di Nicolao's vastly greater use of an unauthorised bot, with huge and long-standing quality problems? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding some of the other accusations, you could also claim I have a “direct link” (as in, lines of communication or “diplomatic cables”) to archive.org, there is on and off wiki evidence of this. One possibility that might come out of this ANI is that people are convinced I am "linked" to both archive.today (through your evidence) and archive.org (through my evidence) in terms of communication (not ownership). Which would basically prove that I am not the owner of any of them and that I do not prefer one archive site over the other.

Keep in mind owning a site versus merely talking with the owner or submitting feature and bug reports are two completely separate things. I know about Amazon and buy stuff from there all the time, and if there is an issue I call their support. Contacting AMZN support over a missing package doesn’t mean I own Amazon, nor does it mean I have a relationship with them, or I’m putting it over eBay or some other ecommerce website. Are you trying to claim I own an archive site, or you trying to claim I have merely communicated with employees/owner(s) of an archive site? Two very different things.

And furthermore regarding the ".is" to ".today" changes, not only is IABot and GreenC bot converting all the .is to .today links, many of the people who voted support in RFC #4 were also involved in changing the links to ".today". They used AWB to do it, and they said that their relation to archive.today was that we are just frequent visitors of the site. Again, this supports the "fan theory", when you are popular enough, people will do stuff for you, give money to you, etc... It can be hard to tell the difference between overzelous fan and owner/strong COI in this case. Don't believe me? Go to any boy band's Wikipedia page and look at the edit history, both of the article itself, and the editors who wrote a huge chunk or maintain the article/keep it up to date. That's why WP:NPOV exists.

Anyway, you ignored my work with archive.org links, and you ignored the part in my first response I said I may have been working/communicatting with the Internet Archive, I think we all agree (even the starters of the thread) that the Internet Archive is a trusted and reputable organization. When making ANI decisions, aren’t we supposed to know all the information that is possible about the case and just not one side?

the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. This is a perfectly valid complaint, I have already admitted there are times I go too fast. I can work to change my behavior on that. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2: move to close

I think it's time to close this discussion. No evidence has presented to support the allegations of sockpuppetry and that Rlink2 is the owner of some archive site, and it is disappointing that those unevidenced claims have not been withdrawn.

The only other complaints are that a) Rlink2 created {{Bare URL PDF}} without prior discussion, which is in no way an ANI matter, and b) that their highly productive edits would be better done as a bot task (on which there seems to be complete agreement).

There is no ANI issue here, so all we need to do here is to ask WP:BAG and @Rlink2 to speed up WP:BRFA/Rlink2 Bot 2. There is no need for ongoing drama about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree. Since the starters of the thread seem to be intrested in video games, let me use an analogy they can understand. Without any further evidence, mulling any more on this ANI thread is like when the AI controls USA and Japan and they go to war in Hearts of Iron 4. Anyone who has played that game knows that the AI doesn't make any headway. Or maybe it can be compared to the Far Harbor puzzle mission in Fallout 4- that mission is so much trouble, and there was literally no point to that one. I don't even know why Bethesda put it in the game.

Jokes and video game comparisions aside, all the drama is truly unnecessary, and any possible (mis)use of AWB could have been discussed on my talk page before taking it to ANI. Let's get back to building a encylopedia. Rlink2 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree this should be closed. There are some minor issues, but it is entirely unfair to hang the specter of a sock allegation against Rlink2 without hard evidence. I am strongly opposed to any block of Rlink2 based solely on circumstantial evidence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree this should be closed. I have read this thread several times. (1) There is a possibility that Rlink2 is connected to an editor who last edited 9 years ago; (2) there is a possibility that Rlink2 in some unspecified way benefits from rescuing dead links and replacing them with live useful archived links; (3) there is irritation that watchlists are being affected. No-one has given a specific troublesome diff. Here is recent diff from Rlink2: Rosecrans Memorial Airport: a bare and dead link has been converted into a useful properly cited archived link. By what convoluted logic is this being turned into a negative? Perhaps Sue Gray should be asked to investigate. Oculi (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional input subsection

Let's put the archive wars behind us ... or maybe not

• I just want to note that although I didn't have much time to take it further yet, I was concerned with this user's promotion of certain archive sites and have expressed it once at the user's talk page (permalink). —PaleoNeonate – 03:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How am I promoting archive sites? I just use them, when it comes to articles, I have some minor copyedits on the archive.today and Internet Archive article. That's about all. I have not written any article about any archive related topics and likely never will. And I explained my rationale for using non archive.org sites, both when you left a message on my talk page, and in this ANI thread.

Like other editors said if you have a problem with an archive site, open up another RFC. I have a feeling this ANI thread is being derailed to a soapbox of people's personal opinions about archive websites, instead of the claims laid out against me in particular. Let's keep it focused. Rlink2 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• The focus is your activity on WP. To answer about promotion, it's obvious: adding thousands of links to otherwise rather obscure websites about which there exists little scrutiny. You have admitted to me that they were controversial but simply persisted. I realize that this is ANI, that there was one call to close and that it may not be the last discussion about this, but since we're already here and that, like I almost did, others may have missed it, I decided to ping various editors. In case they want to comment or just take note of the event, these have helped or expressed concerns in the past. Some may have noticed an evolution, others are used to technical tasks or familiar with the use and rules of automated or semiautomated edits, etc. @Ssilvers, DeCausa, John Maynard Friedman, ElKevbo, Spinningspark, A876, Trappist the monk, Keith D, Geogene, Whywhenwhohow, GreenC, TheSandDoctor, Cameron11598, Mz7, Joeyconnick, Wallyfromdilbert, Ravensfire, Slywriter, JlACEer, Kailash29792, and Ymblanter:. —PaleoNeonate – 10:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I posted on Rlink2’s talk page a couple of weeks ago because I was highly suspicious of my watchlist being filled up with edits to citations linking to a web archive I’d never heard of by an editor who only started 4 months ago but had the confidence to make mass changes across WP, run a bot and accumulate 150k+ edits in that time. At that time my thoughts were (a) there must be a previous undisclosed history/account (b) if there are systemic problems with these mass edits, eg that web archive is unsuitable, it’s going to be horrendous to unpick. I’ve looked over this thread - but not in detail. It seems, IMHO, highly probable that Izno’s suspicious are correct and Rlink2 is Rotlink - and that explains much. I don’t really understand why this isn’t at SPI though for a proper behavioural analysis by those experienced in that sort of thing (I understand CU won’t work here). I can’t claim to have followed all the ins and outs - but it doesn’t smell right though. That’s all I can say and probably not a very helpful input. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Like i said before, if you have a problem with an archive site, take it to RFC. Do not take it out on me. If an archive site was banned I would follow that resolution. And I already offered to stop working with those alternate sites if people want that. Rlink2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• This ANI has been running for quite long enough for the original accusation of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry to have been investigated through the standard channels. Either that has not been done or has not supported the allegation. I thought that WP has higher standards than McCarthyite inferences based on nothing more than surmise and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sure it upsets some people to see twenty articles come up on their watch-list report that they'd even forgotten having put a watch on and haven't seen a change for years. Shooting the messenger is not the solution; just go bring the citations up to current standards – if it didn't bother you to have a link-rot citation before, why are you bothered by a less-than-perfect fix? As to which archive site to use, who cares so long as it actually works? It may all become moot [en-us] soon anyway because of copyright actions. The work that Rlink2 has been doing is not perfect, but there is no bot that is; most importantly it is an improvement on the status quo. Time to wp:drop the stick. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the support John. Rlink2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the editors you tagged in left questions on my talk page that have nothing to do with archive sites. Trappist the Monk has commented on 0 ANI threads in his WP history and this won't be the first one. Actually, I think there was one in 2013, where he just commented to clear something up (so he had no opinion on the matter). You should have read the whole ANI thread before tagging and making more accusations. I think its unlikely GreenC will comment on here, but he said that all the archive sites were OK on my talk page. Almost all of the editors you pinged left mesages that had nothing to do with archives. The only "anti-archivers" you pinged are DeCausa (responded already) and Whywhatwhenwho. And Whywhat just trout slapped me regarding missing citation info, I don't think he was against the alternate archive sites. Asking questions about something and being against something are different. Again, if you have a problem with an archive site, start another RFC. I meant controversial in the way that some don't like but some do, and that there was an RFC that settled the controversy.

And you, Paleo, I resonded to your message, you never got back. If you don't respond to a message, I will assume that are OK with what I am doing, or your confusion cleared up.

I have explained time and time again that my use of alternate sites is for sites Wayback can not handle. Wayback is already unsuitable for these links. If Wayback fixes the capaibility to archive those sites, and an RFC to replace any "alternate archive" sites with archive.org sites passes, I will follow that. And I also explained like 5 times in this thread that I am willing to stop any work with non archive.org sites if that's what people want, since I do way more than just archiving. The links that don't work with Wayback will just have to die because you don't like the solution. You say I persisted in archiving as if I ignored consensus, but you omitted the next part of that sentence where I said I only use it for certain sites. I think we all agree having an alternate archive link is better than letting the link die, that is not uncontroversial.

And many like the other archive sites. I saw on the community wishlist someone wanted additional integration with archive.today. You may not like it, but others do. I have been thanked many times for my edits, and even though a "thank" could mean anything, it at the very least signals appreciation or a "good edit". People are more likely to complain out loud then to thank out loud, its human psychology.

If you haven't heard of an archive site, that is not my problem. I am not a PR agent for archive sites. Some on here didn't even know AWB exists, some still think all admins can edit CSS/JS (unaware of Interface Admin role). If there are editors unaware of everything ON wikipedia (which is fine), how can there be editors aware of everything off wikipedia that other editors use? Some support the archive sites that I used. Let's not turn this skrimish into Wiki Archive War 2. Archive War 1 was supposed to be the war to end all wars, we suffered alot of casualties. Some of the brave soldiers in first battle of the Marne didn't even make it into Battle of Megiddo. Many of the veterans aren't even as active on WP anymore. No one wants to fight another war. We already have a citation war going on too, isn't it wise wisdom to never fight a war on two fronts?

I find it funny how PaleoNeonate and DeCausa are saying other archive sites are bad when archive.org employees say other archive sites are fine and integrate it into their Wikipedia bot. I am sure Cyberpower and IA could get away with the bot doing archive.org, but they added alternate archive sites as well. IABot will sometimes choose other archive sites over Wayback when adding archived links. There was a diff somewhere I would have to dig to find it. Rlink2 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• As I stated on Rlink2 talk page, I believe they should get clear community consensus for any activites that could be considered WP:MEATBOT if for not other reason than to avoid endless talk page messages (and repeated visits to ANI). They have also been responsive and polite on their talk page and have handled this lengthy discussion without losing their cool. If the community still feels their AWB should be revoked, it should be removed for only as long as it takes for them to get community consensus to resume specific activities.Slywriter (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Slywriter:. In a way, I do have "community consensus" - I link to policies that support my edits in my edit summaries. I am not doing anything completely new or out of the ordinary with AWB. Archiving links? Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations. Fixing bare references? Wikipedia:Bare_URLs. How are those policies made? Through community consensus and discussion. And if people have any issues I don't mind talk page discussions. That is one way of further developing and refining consensus.

Complaints will never stop, because not everyone is aware of the policies, discussions, RFCs, etc.... Or some disagree with them but want "take it out" on me. We have an archive.today RFC and people are still complaining about the site. So I don't think a discussion anywhere will be the "silver bullet" necessary. Rlink2 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged here, and I don't have time to read all of this, so I'll just repeat what I said on Rlink2's talk page: I don't think it's a good idea for new editors to make high speed, automated edits. One thing I noted was that Rlink2 has been making numerous automated edits purporting to "fill out bare links", but instead their edits were simply to add a mash-up of the article's title and publisher/work, leaving a messy, incomplete citation, rather than filling in the citation with author name, publisher name, date of publication, as well as title, and other essentials of a good citation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I upgraded the script to split and use publisher/work field after your concern. Second of all, there was lengthy discussion about this on my talk page with multiple editors, see User_talk:Rlink2#A_little_mindless The consensus is that we should not let "perfect be the enemy of the good" . Not all articles on Wikipedia are featured articles and need to have perfect citations. All I was doing is bringing the citations from bare to filled. Articles on Wikipedia don't become stubs to FAs in one edit, do they? I am working on the principles of incremental improvement. Rlink2 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Paleo has pinged in some of the critics, lets tag in some of the supports (have thanked me more than 3 times, all on edits from AWB runs) who may have something to add:

@Cat's Tuxedo: @Ahunt: @MarioSoulTruthFan: @Bigturtle:

For the people that were pinged, I know the thread might be long, and you don't want to read it, so I have one simple question for you: for the edits which you thanked me for, were there any problems with them? Would you say I am doing good work with AWB, or do you think I was making disruptive edits? Were my edits constructive, and did they improve the article? You thanked me, so I assume you liked the edit, and your response will help others know that I was working with some sort of consensus. Rlink2 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have checked hundreds of your edits and they have been useful. None needed fixing or reverting. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a thank you if I wasn't sure an edit was an improvement, so I see no problem here. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I routinely thank constructive edits, including yours. Bigturtle (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The editors I pinged were all that I easily saw in discussions in my above permalink. Some were also helpers. I didn't particularly select them, to avoid WP:CANVASS. —PaleoNeonate – 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I am currently working on an article that's being reviewed for GA status, and I went to expand a section... so I opened the URL to the source... to a PDF on a county government website... which was a 404. Egads! Thankfully, someone thought ahead and added an archive link some months ago -- I was able to read all several hundred pages (and that's far from the only article that PDF was a source for). Personally, I think anyone who is going through Wikipedia archiving references is doing God's work. Reading through this thread, I do not see a whole lot of cogent argumentation of how this guy is doing anything wrong, besides the fact that he is doing a bajillion edits at once. So, okay, I guess he should stop that, or get approval to run it as a bot task. It doesn't seem disruptive to create a template, or to fix a bunch of articles. If I am missing something here, let me know, and perhaps I will change my opinion -- but it seems fine to me. jp×g 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking into this a little further, and going over some of Rlink2's edits: this one looks fine to me. The archive.md link being replaced reads "archive.today" on the header when you follow it. I guess I am not up to date on the various dramas between archive sites, so I don't get what the difference is, but it doesn't seem destructive to me. Also, he's adding titles to three URLs that are otherwise bare URL refs. This edit converts a dead bare-URL reference to a full citation template with a title, archive date, and working archive URL at archive.org. This edit from November does the same as the first (changing archive.is links to archive.today links). Again, not sure what the difference is, but it doesn't seem to make any difference (the archive.is link, again, says "archive.today" in its header when you follow it, leading me to believe that the .is site itself endorses the .today domain). This edit from September adds several YouTube archive links (to archive.org as well as ghostarchive.org). I followed one of the archive links to each, and neither of them loaded -- although both of them had the original video title, upload date, video description and uploader listed. This seems to be some kind of screw-up on the part of the archive sites, but even so, having all of this metadata available is far superior to having nothing. This edit, also from September, is reversion of blatant vandalism. This edit from August straightforwardly adds an archive.org link to a link in a reference. Maybe there are some garbage edits that I'm not seeing here, but these seem to be fairly straightforwardly helpful. At worst, some of them are benign. jp×g 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to those diffs. It proves that I did/do work with all of the archive sites, and I did more than archiving stuff (like RC Patrol/vandalism prevention or filling bare refs). I think its important to note the usage of alternate archive sites for YouTube. As explained before, at the time the alternate archive sites were the only ones doing Youtube archives. Yes, there was a web.archive.org link, but I think that was for videos that were already dead, and usually only the metadata was there. It is better to have some archive than no archive. Rlink2 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just got a message about this; I'm not one to judge either party for whatever reason that this argument is about but just as jp×g said most of the same that was said can be applied to what I will say as well. There is an article that has made me fearful of citation deletion if it weren't for Rlink2 archiving these very citation, they would have been all for nothing! For the article where I've seen Rlink2 were not disruptive but extremely helpful, I have also learned how to use the very archiving website to do the very same Rlink2 has done. As far as how many on how disruptive for any article this would be... I am not the one to ask. Maybe the implementation of a bot? I have no experience in this matter either but whatever may have started this I hope something can get sorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.169.177 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Making 200k edits in the first 4 months of an account is ... for comparison, 10x what I've done in 3 years and I'm on here every day. Obviously Rlink2 isn't Rlink2's first account, but if they're not Rotlink (and the username is so close as to almost be trolling, but AGFing to the max...), I'm unclear on who they are. Normally I wouldn't ask an editor that question, it's none of my business if it's a clean start or whatever, but you kind of give up any pretense when you make 200k edits in 4 month of a new account. Also I'm unclear about whether they are or or are not in fact linking to one website. If they are, it's shameless promotion, and they ought to be site banned. If they're not, and it's good-faith editing, then the next question is what's the "error rate" (good edits v. bad edits). If it's not too high, then whatevs. If it is too high, then slow down/fix the errors. As for the socking concern, it should be pretty straightforward for Rlink2 to email some CU and disclose their prior account and thereby establish that they're not Rotlink. (They don't have to tell me, it's none of my business.) Levivich 02:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Making 200k edits in the first 4 months of an account I used AWB, when you use AWB you can get alot done, depending on the task.

the username is so close Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused There are literally multiple editors on that list which "basically close" usernames.

If it is too high, then slow down/fix the errors. I agree.

Also I'm unclear about whether they are or or are not in fact linking to one website. I use multiple archive sites, and there are multiple diffs to back this up.

Thank you for your opinion, it is much welcome Rlink2 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: You think that's wild, wait till someone opens the SPI to unmask the shady character pulling the strings behind me, JFG, JzG, and Jpgordon. As for the amount of links added, well -- it's an archive site. A search in source for "archive.org" in mainspace returns a little under a million pages before the regex times out. jp×g 03:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confused by what I read at the top of User talk:Rlink2/Archive 2, such as the reference to "he", which -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong -- is a direct reference to User:Rotlink? Levivich 04:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the response Valjean's comment of Changing https://archive.ph to https://archive.today doesn't do any good., "he" is a direct reference to the owner of archive.today. The word "he" could have been replaced with "owner of archive.today" I was not trying to make any reference to any wiki account. Rlink2 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So what is your relationship with the owner of archive.today, because it seems to me, based on that comment, you are familiar with him? Levivich 05:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the blog post, and I said that "he said" based on the blog post he wrote. There was a link to the blog post in there (https://blog.archive.today/post/659307974748160000/because-you-have-multiple-domains-can-you-tell-me). Again, I do not work for archive.today, just a user of the site. Rlink2 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. What's your relationship (if any) with ghostarchiving? Levivich 05:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar to archive.today. And that goes with etched.page as well.

Like I said at the top, if anything at all, I have been in talks for possible collaboration (as in, doing work for them) with archive.org (althrough nothing has materialized through it yet). It's a long thread, but you should try to read it all so you have all the facts.

If people are convinced I own some archive site, I have said that I will happily stop linkwork related to the supposed archive site on the wiki if the community decides its right. I don't think a relationship with an archive site is a bad thing, seeing how we have many people on here working for archive.org. I think even the owner of archive.org is on wikipedia, but not sure. And the alternate archive sites are doing sites archive.org can not do, so as explained before, assuming I own some archive site, it's not like I'm putting one site over the other because I am related to it, rather it is because it is the only option.

I put the image gallery on the top for a reason, if you think an archive site should or should not be used on enwiki, open up an RFC. I would follow the results of any possible RFC. Rlink2 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar to? OK. Look, that archive.is (aka archive.today) blog post you've linked to about using the .today extension is from Aug 12, 2021. Ghostarchive.com/org/etc was registered August 13, 2021. It also uses a Tumblr blog, like archive.is. It's first post was to repost an archive.is post on Aug. 28 [145].

On Sep 1, you created User:Rlink2. Here are your first 5,000 edits (this link takes a while to load): [146] which run Sep 1 to Nov 7. "Archive.today" appears 4,814 times on that page. You also added archives to ghostarchive in early September (they have the edit summary "arc", etc); as GreenC pointed out to you, you might be the first person to add that link to Wikipedia. On Sep 22, you created a phab task about IABot removing ghostarchive links [147].

Here's your next 5,000 edits [148] which run to Nov 24 ... quite the ramp up. "YouTube" appears 2,181 times on that page, and I think that's all ghostarchive archives. "archive.today" appears 2,148 times, and I think that's about the other half.

So through the first 10k edits, Sep 1 to Nov 24, it looks to me like more than 90% is adding archive.today and ghostarchive. December was a 100k-edit month according to your xtools [149]. How much of those is adding archive.today and ghostarchive? (Also according to your xtools, archive.today is your second-most-edited mainspace page, behind 2021 Pacific typhoon season... all your edits to that page are links to archive.today [150].)

With 200k edits, you're now #208 editor by edit count in WP's 21-year history, and you got there after only four months. I'm not going to look through them all but, yeah, I think if you're going to mass-add archive links, you should get consensus first, and before agreeing, editors may ask for a more detailed explanation than "similar to". :-) Levivich 06:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. Look, that archive.is (aka archive.today) blog post you've linked to about using the .today extension is from Aug 12, 2021.. I address this below.

It also uses a Tumblr blog, like archive.is. I have a suprise for you: Internet Archive Tumblr. And many companies have social media accounts. I don't think that means anything.

Ghostarchive.com/org/etc was registered August 13, 2021. According to this page, it traces back all the way to January 1st, 2015. I don't know too mucb about the history of the site, it seems to have been around for a while. I do know i have started using it fairly recently. and It's first post was to repost an archive.is post on Aug. 28 How do you think I found out about the site? Through the archive.today blog. I know its a new site, we should definetly go easy on using it, but it could do Youtube videos, hence why I used it. Would you rather have an archived Youtube video at a relatively new archive site than no archive at all?

On Sep 22, you created a phab task about IABot removing ghostarchive links Yes? I think on the advice of someone else, I don't remember though. What does that have to do with anything.

On Sep 1, you created User:Rlink2. Here are your first 5,000 edits You need an account to get AWB access and do AWB edits. ​So through the first 10k edits, Sep 1 to Nov 24, it looks to me like more than 90% is adding archive.today and ghostarchive. See my point 7 up top regarding Failure to look at how the archiving may benefit my wiki status. Its relatively simple to add archived links, especially as a new account, to get to 500/30, AWB access, etc... And why are you ignoring my other edits? Most of those edits are AWB edits where it is expected that lots of edits are done. 10k edits does not necessarily represent a significant time investment.

you might be the first person to add that link to Wikipedia. Might be true, think I saw it in one article, don't remember. I chose ghostarchive because it did youtube and no other archive did youtube. You ignored that part of the argument?

you should get consensus first, most people were fine with my additions. See above.

(Also according to your xtools, archive.today is your second-most-edited mainspace page) because I forgot to take out archive.today article when doing the archive.is to archive.today changes in AWB. So my edits are mostly reverts of myself.

Regarding 2021 Pacific typhoon season that was related to repair of archve links other people placed there.

#208 editor by edit count in WP's 21-year history maybe that was my goal? It does look impressive to friends, resume, etc.... Imagine how cool it would sound being able to tell people you are one of the top 200th Wikipedia editors of all time. You know this is true, everyone likes bragging rights. Again, see point 7 above. You accuse me of making those edits because I am in cahoots with archive sites, but what if I used the archive sites to get to be the #208th editor? What else can you do to gain such amount of edits? If I was someone looking to rack up my edit count, that blog post would be a major lightbulb. Editcountis is real. And to be honest, yes I was obsessed with racking up my edit count (not anymore). I didn't want to admit it but I am now forced to. There are not many spelling errors to fix with AWB, so this is a very easy way to rack up edits.

And again, archiving links is not the only thing I do on here. I do other stuff and if this evidence convinces others I am related to archive sites then I will stop linkwork with the alternate archive sites, like I said before. I'm fan of archive sites, this doesn't prove ownership or "stake". Wouldn't it make sense that someone who is intrested in archival and link rot in general would be the first to know about a new archival site? You also didn't read the "boy band" analogy I wrote above.

Here are some more questions that invalidate your theory.

• If I was the owner or was related to these archive sites, why would I be doing other stuff such as recent change patrol and bare ref fixing and even some article incubation? I was changing the archive.is to archive.today links for a while, with no controversy. If I was the owner, why would I be spending more time on WP then I needed to, coding scripts and writing articles that I didn't need to write? Even the bare ref stuff takes lots of attention and time. I am prepping up to create and mantain another tool similar to reFill or refLinks. That will take up even more of my time. Somehow my hard work in other areas is not mentioned. The only reason we are here is because people were complaining about the bare ref fixes and the quality.

• If I was the owner or was related to these archive sites, why am I dropping the ability to work with it easily? Surely, if I could no longer work with archive.today links, and I was the owner, then there would be no point of me being here, so why would I make that offer?

• Why didn't you mention other sites that I found useful to use on Wikipedia? You looked into my edit history and talk page archives deep enough, you saw I did some work etched.page and some Instagram paywall bypass website for WP:V. I do not own any of these sites. I didn't think etched.page was suitable enough, but attempted to use the Instagram site. However, they did not have consensus, so I stopped using them and instead used the archive sites, which was what people wanted. Saying I'm affiliated with 5 different archival websites would be a strech for anyone to believe, so you didn't mention it, but why? Rlink2 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being in cahoots, or really of anything else. You said you weren't mostly just adding links to archive.today and I just showed you that in your first 10k edits, more than 90% (really like 95%+) are adding links to archive.today and ghostarchive. I don't care what the other 10% edits are. If you want to convince me that this is not a representative sample, you're gonna have to show me at least another 10k edits. Linking to a few diffs or nakedly asserting it ain't gonna cut it with me. Now, you don't have to prove anything to me, I'm not an admin or anything. But after looking at your first 10k edits, I see almost all of it is adding links to ghostarchive and changing archive.* to archive.today, and that started within a couple weeks apparently of ghostarchive being registered and archive.today's owner asking for the links to be changed. It's bloody obvious you created an account for the purpose of adding these particular two websites, and that's what you spent 90% of your first 3 months / 10k edits doing (I have demonstrated the truth of this above, so let's get past the rhetorical bullshit). There are lots of reasons a person might do this -- editcountitis, fanboyism, a deep passion for internet archiving, payment, the hopes of getting a job in the future, boredom, or something else entirely -- and I don't know or really care which one is your case, just like I don't care about prior accounts, and I don't care if you make these edits at all... except that I care that you don't do it without consensus, because that is disruptive, and I'm suggesting to you that if and when you seek that consensus, editors are going to ask questions like what they're asking here. So saying things like "similar to" and "I may be in talks with" sounds sketchy af, you're better off being a lot more specific, direct and transparent. But seriously, don't bother telling me, because I don't care. Tell everyone else, when they ask, which they will when you ask for consensus for mass edits. I hope that clears up where I'm coming from. Levivich 07:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't care what the other 10% edits are. So you don't care about seeing the other part of the story?

you're gonna have to show me at least another 10k edits. I have cleared so many bare refs, and don't take my word for it. My work on bare refs are so phenomonal that other editors are prasing my work. I have performed more than 30k edits regarding barerefs. Just look at my most recent 10k edits, its a good sample of my bare ref fixing.

It's bloody obvious you created an account for the purpose of adding these particular two websites and first 10k edits, more than 90% (really like 95%+) are adding links to archive.today and ghostarchive. If I was trying to avoid suspicion or scrutiny, wouldn't I do the bare ref fixes first, or article creation first, and then the archive fixes? Surely, someone adding new archive links as a new account would set off more red flags, wouldn't it? And also I didn't add addtional links to archive.today, I fixed ones that were already there. And the archive.is to archive.today conversion is basically complete, I have also finished my work with Youtube archiving as well for the forseeable future. If I was here only to adding these particular two websites why would I still be here. And also I added more useful sites as well to help ensure WP:V, like the Instagram thingy, but I stopped because there was consensus to use archive sites instead.

I have demonstrated the truth of this above, so let's get past the rhetorical bullshit Woah there! Let's try to assume good faith and WP:CIVIL. And I'm not trying to rhetorical either, you are suggesting evidence to show your claim, and I am suggesting evidence to prove my side.

except that I care that you don't do it without consensus, because that is disruptive I have showed you places where my edits were supported by other editors. There are examples in this very thread. There are examples on the talk page archives you checked. There are some editors that may not like it, but theres a difference between "not like but fine with others doing it" versus "I don't like it so much it shouldn't be used on the Wikipedia at all". I never got any sense of the latter in regards to archive sites until this thread and very very recently.

People have affirmed that my edits were constructive and helpful. If I made disruptive edits, please link to the diffs.

and that started within a couple weeks apparently of ghostarchive being registered It was registered in 2015. and archive.today's owner asking for the links to be changed. There was another post made even earlier than that, that was just the most recent post I could find. Now it is way past my bedtime. Rlink2 (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The WHOIS Creation Date of ghostwriter.org (and .com and .net) is 2021-08-13. You mentioned you were in talks with Brewster. Did you ever talk to Brewster about buying out Denis? I wonder how recently did archive.org start handling YouTube videos? Levivich 14:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I am awake again, and reread your previous comments . you're better off being a lot more specific, direct and transparent. I have addressed basically every single concern in this thread, maybe I forgot one but other than that I answered or offered a rebuttal them all. Not all of it is me trying to defend myself, some people have pointed out things I shouldn't have done, and I agreed that I shouldn't have done that. I'm making this additional commment just to tie up the loose ends since I was way too tired last night. Not only have I answered all your questions, I have asked you additional questions. You have not answered or responded to any of these.

Regarding the balance of archive website placement, I estimate about 25-45% of the bare refs are dead, and were replaced with an web.archive.org link. Seeing how I have made at least 50,000 bare ref edits, thats about 25,000 links added to web.archive.org. Using your liberal estimate, my first 10k edits, 9500 of them were related to ghostarchive or archive.today. So from just this small sample, I have placed nearly 250% more archive.org links than archive.today and ghostarchive links combined.

You mentioned you were in talks with Brewster Not with him, but with someone else at the internet archive.

The WHOIS Creation Date of ghostwriter.org (and .com and .net) is 2021-08-13. The domain creation date is January 1st, 2015, did you read the page I linked? I don't really care when they started though, I heard about it fairly recently, so it's new to me. And when did this become a discussion of when archive sites started and stopped? A project called Lifelog shut down on the same day Facebook started, and while its fun to believe they are related (two arugably very similar projects with arguably similar goals), there is no evidence to believe so.

Archive.org only started handling Youtube very recently. I checked today and many popular videos are alreaady archived. But the less popular videos that are not archived take a couple days to archive. Ghostarchive does it (and has always done it) instantly. Try it for yourself. Rlink2 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can check a WHOIS service, like https://lookup.icann.org, and confirm that the Whois creation date for ghostarchive.org is 2021-08-13. You posted an archive link of what appears to be an older registration from 2015 (that you even found it is surprising). Perhaps that older one expired, was deleted, and was re-registered on Aug 13, 2021. But the current registration was originally registered on Aug 13, 2021; the current website is not older than that; Whois creation date can't be changed afaik per icann regs (check Wikipedia.org: creation date 2001-01-13). Anyway, like I said, I really don't care if you wrote the ghostarchive code and are now trying to sell it to archive.org, I wish you the best of luck on that. But if I can follow these bread crumbs, so can everyone else. We're big on transparency. Levivich 15:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The "WHOIS" creation date and the domain age are different. If the WHOIS creation date was 2015 once, then the domain has been under operation since 2015. Perhaps that older one expired, was deleted, and was re-registered on Aug 13, 2021. So it's maybe possible they forgot to pay their domain bills and lost the domain temporarily, so had to re register? It happens to a lot of big companies: see here. Why don't you ask them about their creation date if it means so much to you?

Whois creation date can't be changed Except it literally did, from 2015 to 2021 as you are claiming.

I really don't care if you wrote the ghostarchive code and are now trying to sell it to archive.org, I wish you the best of luck on that. Where did that come from? Archive.org is a million dollar organization, I dont think archive.today or ghostarchive has anything that archive.org can't get. Regardless, I have no idea where that notion came from, that I somehow run two archive websites that i'm trying to sell to archive.org, and in order to do that I spend a significant time working on completely unrelated topics of Wikipedia. And you have not even answered any of my follow up questions, instead choosing to make theories which seemingly have no basis.

Even if the community says my work with alternative archive sites are fine, I will very sure be staying away from using any alternative sites on WP for a very significant period of time. I mean this with sincerity, I have other stuff to do on here. It's not worth the accusations and theories that result from using them. We're big on transparency. then why haven't you answered my follow up questions? Rlink2 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If the domain was registered in 2015 and renewed ever since, it would show a WHOIS creation date of 2015. If it expired and was later renewed, it would still show a creation date of 2015. If it was transferred, it would still show a creation date of 2015. The only way (afaik, feel free to prove me wrong) that the whois creation date is 2021-08-13 is if it was entirely unregistered on 2021-08-12. If it was registered in 2015 and was unregistered in 2021, that can only happen (again, afaik) if it was expired, not renewed, deleted, and then later registered again. This indicates a period of inactivity long enough to allow the domain to be deleted. (I think that's a year these days? Not sure.) What I am sure of is that the current ghostarchive.org was registered as a new domain on 2021/08-13. Or else the whois creation date is wrong, which (afaik) is not possible. I'm not answering your questions because they're rhetorical (in the form of "why would I...?"). I think you're trying to get a job/partnership/something with archive.org (you've said as much), and that alone explains, to my satisfaction, your editing history, and your answers here. There's nothing against policy about doing that (other than maybe the lack of transparency), and as you've said, there are already people paid by archive.org to add links to Wikipedia. (There are lots of people paid by lots of orgs to add links to Wikipedia, such as Wikipedians in Residence, for example.) But my suggestion is still to be upfront with your relationship with the websites you're adding links to, and not rely on rhetorical questions like "why would I...?" cuz they seem sketchy, at least to me. Levivich 16:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If it expired and was later renewed, it would still show a creation date of 2015. Not if you let it expire "completely" I think. Again, this is a question for them, not me.

I heard about it in August, I can only speak for me.

In regards to relationship/ownership There's nothing against policy about doing that (other than maybe the lack of transparency) I am aware of that. Reminder that Rotlink was banned for running an unapproved bot, not owning archive.today. At best, having a COI puts you through additional sanctions, but it is not worthy of a ban IMO. We have COI editors on here, as long as they follow the rules they are allowed. Therefore, there is no reason for me to lie about any relationship. This just goes to strengthen my argument and responses.

But my suggestion is still to be upfront with your relationship with the websites you're adding links to I wasn't trying to be shady, I answered almost every question and addressed almost every single complaint in this thread. I'll make this as clear as I possibily can: Regarding the other archive sites (and any of the other "half-archive" sites that you did not address in your inquiry): I have communicated with them, whether its in the form of blog questions, feature requests, etc... For example, I wouldn't have converted all the links from .is to .today if I wasn't sure that that was what the owner wanted. To be clear, I am not paid by any of the archive sites.

I have never denied this, and I say the same thing in the diff Paleo linked. I also said the same thing earlier in the thread. Me calling Amazon support about a package does not make me own Amazon or mean I have a relationship with them, nor does it mean I am "cahoots" with them. If I have an issue with my cell phone service, I call the phone company. It does not mean I own the phone company. That was one of the major points I was trying to make above that I am guessing you didn't see.

I am not putting one site over the other as I explained above. I will say I have communicated more with archive.org than any of the other sites.

I'm not answering your questions because they're rhetorical They were not meant to be rhetorical.

think you're trying to get a job/partnership/something with archive.org Well, nothing has materialized yet, but we'll see. This is a far more sensible theory (well, fact) that is supported by evidence. The other accusation I really don't care if you wrote the ghostarchive code and are now trying to sell it to archive.org, I wish you the best of luck on that. doesn't make any sense. Rlink2 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine shows that Ghostarchive.com was a music page in 2011, and was a parked domain in 2015 and January 2016 and was an entirely blank page in March and October 2016. The claims you are trying to make about the age of Ghostarchive are not convincing. To be fair, I don't entirely understand the argument Levivich is trying to use the age of Ghostarchive to support either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the archived pages. The page from 2011 says that This web site is on hold at the present time no firm date has yet been set for its launch.. That is certainly intresting to note.

The claims you are trying to make about the age of Ghostarchive are not convincing. I have not made any claims, just offered suggestions and stuff to look into. I think its likely that they started fairly recently, but I also think there is more history to it than just August, as shown by the 2011 archive. I am not an expert on domain names and/or computer networking, I could be totally wrong. Rlink2 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: It raises my eyebrow that there's an archiving service that apparently started in August 2021 and by Jan 2022 it has 50,000 links on WP. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just an unusual thing. Levivich 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

apparently started in August 2021 We started using it around then, but as evidenced above maybe its history goes deeper than that. But for the purpose of the argument, we can assume it started around August 2021. We can even argue it was founded yesterday, if it helps.

it has 50,000 links on WP. Of which the vast majority (95%) are Youtube videos, and no other archive could do until recently.

To me, that just shows that people are fine with the site. The more articles its on = the more people have seen it on their watchlist, article, etc..... and haven't complained yet = the more people using it in general. If people had a problem with the site too many people would be complaining before it got to that level. Rlink2 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how many of those 50k links to ghostarchive were added by you? Levivich 02:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I processed (I think) about 40,000 articles in my Youtube AWB run. About 5% were already dead, Wayback only had the metadata (video wasn't actually archived). 5% of 40,000 is 2,000, so that would mean 38,000 were preemptely archived by me. That is an estimate, might be lower, might be higher. Rlink2 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rlink2 has, by my count, made ~50000 edits converting bare references. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rlink2 has, by my count, made ~50000 edits converting bare references. Thank you for pointing that out. Multiple other editors have also been pointing out my hard work in other areas. Rlink2 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific archive sites for specific purposes

I have been explaning time and time again that my use of alternate archive sites are for site Wayback can not handle. Not one person who has complained about these alternate archive sites has responded to this, or anything I have said as a matter of fact. Note that most people appreciated my work with the alternate archive sites, as can be seen above. I am assuming that the links to the alternate archive sites worked for them. The thread is getting a bit messy, and think its important for everyone (including the users that will make a decision on the thread) can see my justification for using alternate archive sites instead of Wayback for a temporary period of time, I'll show these two archive links. These are archives from back when the archive.org Youtube capability was not as good (It is much better today) and from some of the diffs linked above.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160306215000/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0U_iNAESlo

https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/RMjE2rC8gXI

I would like to see what others have to say regarding the Youtube archive functionality of the two sites during the time I was using these alternate archive sites.

Wayback is much improved now, but back then I had justification for my actions. All I am trying to do is prove that. Rlink2 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record (and for anyone confused) Ghostarchive does not appear to be working on Firefox. However it does certainly work on Chrome, which is already better than Wayback which just says it is not archived, so I do think using a lesser-known archive site is reasonable here. eviolite (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just tested the example above on Firefox, and it does not seem to be working for me either.

However, I did test other videos on Firefox, those seem to be working. For example the front page video: https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/jNQXAC9IVRw and another video https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/y2R3WlVpNio . So it might be with that particular video. Not sure. Thanks for your comment. Others are welcome to also comment. Rlink2 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with ghostarchive, just that I don't want it to be blacklisted. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wayback has made improvements saving YouTube links. Wayback is in the process of archiving every YouTube link on every Wikipedia (300+ sites) as well as archiving new ones as they are added. I suppose if Ghost gives up the ghost we'll have Wayback as backup, or use both sites via {{webarchive}} with the |format=addlarchives option. -- GreenC 19:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to have some conformation. The improvement I have seen from the Wayback machine regarding Youtube videos now has been vast. When I first started archiving Youtube, the Youtube functionality at archive.org wasn't great. But now, you can submit a video, and most of the time it saves instantly even though it says "may take few days to complete". My only complaint is that it is sometimes too slow to load the page in the first place, but I am sure they can iron that one out. Youtube being included as part of "NoMore404" is part of the reason I stopped preemptly archiving Youtube videos, since the point of that editing strech was to make an archive in an instance where there would usually be none. If I pick up on Youtube again, Wayback would now be the preferred source due to their vast repository of archived videos. Rlink2 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean past archives of YouTube videos can be viewed? Or only the latest ones? If it is the latter, I hope a bot—any bot—fixes non-working YouTube archives with working ones. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Rod Stewart articles

• Rhythm of My Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Motown Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two IPs from the same location in Australia have been inexplicably reverting my edits, often introducing uncited information or factual errors into the articles I've listed above. I've had history with this editor in the past. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this situation without going over 3RR, and it's seven in the morning as I type this, so please assist with whatever is appropriate. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I protected both articles for two weeks and blocked the most disruptive IP for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Abusive comment from User:WNkh

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

After being warned for the final time regarding AfD disruption and being reminded that, if they opposed deletion, they should add their thoughts to the discussion rather than remove the AfD tags, this user responded abusively. See here. I'm aware that most of this user's edits have been constructive but I still don't think that this sort of comment is appropriate. Am I overreacting? Please can an uninvolved person have a look? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We have some users on this project who can post this and avoid an immediate block, but this one does not seem to be in this category.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Passive-Aggressiveness from editor

user:DublinDilettante added an unsourced statement to 2009 Cuban government dismissals which I immediately reverted, then he reverted my revert and quote "anon vandalism by politically motivated troll". This is ludicrous behavior from an editor on WikiPedia. 2A02:1205:5000:9C00:B0F7:7BE7:16BF:8435 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reworked that bit based on the source to hopefully have something everyone is happy with. BeŻet (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Whistleblower101 clearly WP:NOTHERE

User:Whistleblower101 has had quite a few chances to do something other than "whistleblowing" and soapboxing, but hasn't taken any of them up. Even the most cursory glance at their contributions shows that they are definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, however just their cause might be. They've been warned plenty of times, with exactly zero result or engagement. It's time for the inevitable. Time to blow the indefinite block whistle. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Whistleblower101. Cullen328 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Jmurphy914

Jmurphy914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s user page is pretty much a self-indictment of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• You could warn them about discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. I agree that the edits to the Greene talk page are silly forum posts of a very POV-y nature, and maybe one of my colleagues will block them for it, or issue a partial block (that's a useful tool), but I prefer that be done after a proper warning, and thus with the proper authoritay. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, yea, but they haven't actually done anything untowards in recent edits, the problematic stuff was 9+ years ago. Having a subpar opinion of the Wikipedia on one's userpage isn't actionable. ValarianB (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Socks + POV-pusher

An user under four differnt IPs - User:148.77.37.122, User:162.83.236.163, and User:2603:7080:140:f600:e06d:657c:f4f4:580e, User:69.123.237.31 - has been adding the same unrelated content to the same article, despite being reverted every time and having the consensus clearly against him/her. Compare [151] vs [152] vs [153] vs [154]. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Veverve, I don't see a note on the talk page or much explanation in the history, besides this. I can't see the whole article from La Croix--if you can confirm that Grillo is not mentioned there at all, that would be a step forward. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: The article does mention Grillo who gives his opinion. However, the issue is not whether or not Grillo criticised Benedict XVI; the problem is that adding that "Andrea Grillo, an Italian theologian and outspoken critic of Pope Benedict XVI's liberalization of the Traditional Latin Mass who has campaigned in favor of imposing an institutional silence on the pope emeritus (Benedict XVI), also taught at the institute" is neither due nor relevant, and that it is the consensus not to put this information, on top of being clear sockpuppetting.

Numerous people from Sant'Anselmo are mentioned in the Catholic News Agency article, but only Vittorio Francesco Viola and Aurelio García Macías are considered relevant as they are bishops directly involved with the Vatican department on liturgy and the CNA article says as much, while Grillo is an unknown academic. Furthermore, the La Croix article is from 2017 - 4 years before the subject of the article - and as far as Grillo is concerns only contains a short interview with Grillo which would be WP:SYNTH. Veverve (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Veverve, that makes sense--if you would, please post this on the article talk page real quick, and then admins like me will have something to point at if this happens again. And I'll make sure it won't happen in the same way again for the next three months. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: done. Thanks for your work! Veverve (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And thank you for this, Veverve. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Cherry Benji

Cherry Benji (talk · contribs) Continues to upload non-free media (such as this and this) in full resolution taken directly from other websites, despite being warned many times on their talk page not to do so. They have also refused to attach any sort of copyright information or fair-use rationale to their uploads, which is part of the reason many of them have been deleted.

Some of their other edits are disruptive as well and have been reverted (such as this and this). Misceditor1000 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this user for a while, not least the repeated copyright violations, despite warnings and deletions. Their lack of communication is worrying. They also seem to demonstrate WP:OWN behaviour at Jason Aldean (see here). I'm also concerned with WP:CIR as they keep creating really poor articles like Draft:Trouble With a Heartbreak (Jason Aldean song), Draft:Trouble With a Heartbreak. Is this someone who is willing to collaborate and build an encyclopaedia? At the moment, they seem to be a net negative but maybe they'll turn it around eventually. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, the lack of communication from them makes it look like they're just outright ignoring warnings, especially with as many copyright violation uploads of theirs being deleted as there are. Thing is, they'd probably be accepted and used in an article if they'd attach a non-free rationale to them and shrink the image to something like 300x300, as is pretty much required with those. They don't even want to do that though, hence the deletions. Misceditor1000 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They've just restored the copyright content again here. Not sure if this is an attempt at trolling at this stage or just pure stubbornness... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just seen that. Under WP:3RR I can't do any more reverts right now, but it'll be something else if this user breaks that rule just to restore an image which, as I explained to them, can't be hosted on Wikipedia as it's copyrighted and contains no fair-use rationale. Misceditor1000 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Misceditor1000: Under WP:3RRNO point 5 removing content that is an obvious copyright violation or unquestionably violates NFCC policy is exempt from edit waring restrictions. I imagine that any reasonable administrator would say that uploading the same image over and over at nonsense titles to try to avoid it being downsized is an obvious violation of the NFCC policy. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely. GiantSnowman 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate it, thanks! Misceditor1000 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk

• ukdrivingskills.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have noticed that one editor, User:Don L Gates has made many contributions all relevant to vehicle driving in Britain. In all the cases I checked (about 10 recent edits) the contribution essentially involved adding a link to https://www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk , sometimes (e.g. The Highway Code, section "Access") at the top of a list of other links. The links weren't to blatant advertising, usually linking to relevant information, but the pattern seems odd, and the site is a commercial site selling subscriptions. Consequently I post the information here so that it can be considered. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Don L Gates owns and operates ukdrivingskills.co.uk, which makes this a COI issue. Beyond that, I wouldn't consider this site a reliable source. No author by-lines, no editorial policy, no author/editor backgrounds, not cited by reliable sources, etc. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems abundantly clear that this user is only here to promote their website. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User has been given a first and only warning and has not edited since; let's see if he picks up where he left off. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting a block right now, they definitely need a warning and an opportunity to alter their editing patterns. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Same have duly been given :) Stifle (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

How Hillsong Church garnered incivility and SPA edits

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

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

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

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

I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [155]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.

I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [156]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [157]. As L32007 has just admitted today [158], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.

L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [159]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [160]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [161]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [162]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.

In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.

Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.

Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [163]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.

Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.

Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [164], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.

In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page, citing several guidelines in the process he is clearly familiar with [165]. It should be noted that he appeared well-versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he had made previously, and continued to make afterwards. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. The reason I started this ANI is that it was clear to me, from our brief interaction on your talk page, that you did not understand that, and you still do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack if there is irrefutable proof they are lying, it's simply a statement of fact. I understand you disagree, however, as you've already stated on my talk page it's uncivil to call someone a liar even if they are lying, which is an absurd belief to hold. But that's my opinion, and unlike you, as I've already mentioned I'm happy to agree to disagree. I still can't believe you've felt the need to make a mountain out of a molehill with something I said in passing that was clearly true. Please just drop the stick and let the admins make a decision. I won't reply to anything further you add. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How about we both stop writing and let an uninvolved editor or an admin weigh-in? And for the record, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but not when WP:NPA is being violated with no end to that behaviour in sight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved (occasional) editor here. Damien you need to cool your jets - one of the basic principles here is "assume good faith" - so even if you're sure someone is lying, don't just go around calling them a liar. You're better off working with Walter to improve the article. It doesn't need to have the minutiae of every little scandal gone into in great depth. Walter - it would probably be good for experienced editors and/or admins to keep an eye on this article for the next few months - Hillsong have got themselves involved in Australian politics at very high levels (e.g. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/09/23/hillsong-brian-houston-scott-morrison/) and there's an election coming up in the next few months, so no doubt there will be occasional bursts of politically-motivated editor-initiated shenanigans. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus: I did ping Walter to the talk page last year for the purpose of addressing concerns at the article, but he didn't reply. Nobody wanted to help fix the issue, which was a shame.

I put a lot of effort into uncovering the lengths at which SPA editors had manipulated the article, and when one of them finally replied, they ignored all the criticism against them, and instead made a false claim. In retrospect, yes, I was quite triggered that the only reply I got to all my hard work was someone commenting directly underneath my evidence regarding a letter from a minister that I had quoted the wrong letter, which I can clearly prove I did not. Yes, I was very angry. If that person didn't have a several-year history of adding original research to the article, I would have assumed good faith, but considering their history, I could not.

I completely agree the article should be watched by others, and would happily recuse myself if this happens as I actually have no interest in the Hillsong Church. The sole purpose of my talk page post in the first place was pointing out bias in the hopes others would get involved. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The root issue, however, is not the article but you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change if you go to another article. You keep blaming other editors and refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The root issue is SPA's adding original research and making statements that are not true. It isn't wasted on me that nobody is doubting that untrue statements were made over a period of many years. You keep refusing to acknowledge the cause and instead only address my reaction.

You and I have interacted once. You're making quite the leap (and are also not assuming good faith), when you say you expect me to call other editors liars in the future. To the best of my recollection, I've never called someone a liar before in 14 years of editing Wikipedia. Until this week, however, I'd never had to deal with an SPA with an editing history this questionable before.

Rest assured it will not happen again though. I have learned something through this experience, and that is the next time I uncover someone with an editing history like this, instead of saying they lied, I'll say "you have a long history of making statements that are inaccurate". No I'm not being facetious; that's what I will say. Maybe then people will actually pay attention to their editing history, instead of my reaction to it. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I never wrote that I expected you to call other editors liars. I posted a link to the article's talk page, and deleted too much of it, yet you know where I was referencing when I stated that you made a personal attack. The sarcasm was misplaced but you clearly did not see that calling an editor a liar because you believed it to be factually true. Whether it was based on fact or not, it is inappropriate to call an editor a liar. For the record, the editor has since written they were referencing a document different than the one you were and so this is a misunderstanding.

The question is not whether you are or are not good at uncovering problems, it is how you choose to address other editors whom you dislike. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of the editor's response, and as you already know I responded at the talk page in question indicating what's wrong with their explanation. L32007 choosing to post directly under me commenting about a letter from a minister and saying I got the letter wrong, and expecting me to read their mind and understand they're referring to a completely different letter that was mentioned several months earlier, is either just plain silly, or deliberate dishonesty and a poor attempt to back-pedal. Their explanation also neither addresses the fact that they have completely ignored and refused to discuss the criticism of their behaviour, nor does it change the fact they have made untrue statements elsewhere.

You explicitly said "[The issue is] you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change ..."[166]. Now you're trying to say you never expected me to do it again. That appears to be gaslighting. I don't have the energy to keep up with how often you seem to change your story, so I'd very much prefer if we stopped talking. One editor has agreed with you that I'm over-reacting, though I note they've given no indication they even looked into the root issue of the SPA's behaviour. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that L32007 is an SPA, and us continuing to remonstrate over everything else is just bloating this section and making it less likely for anyone else to weigh in, so once again I won't reply to you again unless someone new comments. And just for the record, when I say I'm not going to reply again until someone else comments [167], you replying by suggesting the exact same thing[168] is redundant. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice to admins. WP:TLDR? I pointed out the behavior of L32007, an SPA editor, who had attributed inaccurate statements to references over a period of at least 3 years. He ignored my criticism and instead only accused me of linking to the wrong document in my argument. Because he has a history of inaccurate statements, because he would not discuss his behaviour, and because I did not make the error it appeared he had accused me of, I lost my temper and called him a liar. In 14 years of editing Wikipedia, to the best of my recollection I have not called someone a liar before. L32007 then stated the error he had accused me of was something different to what I thought; if this is true he did a very poor job of explaining what document he was initially referring to. It was difficult for me to AGF on this, due to his wording and his history of making untrue statements. However, I will accept this and move on. I emphatically reject many of the claims Walter Görlitz, the top contributor of the article, has made against me during this conversation. He was unwilling to discuss the issue of SPA edits on the article's talk page after I pinged him there, which was disappointing, and this inaction contrasted with how quickly he was willing to criticise me over this matter, exacerbating my already tense feelings on the situation. In saying this I am only trying to explain why I continued to lose my temper, which is regrettable. I do agree to not call someone a liar again, even if I am certain they are lying and they have a history of making inaccurate statements. L32007 has already stated he will "try" to broaden his editing outside his current narrow interest. His unwillingness to discuss his behaviour is problematic, though I do not believe he will continue to attribute false statements to references. I see no reason for this discussion to stay open and now hope this issue can be closed swiftly. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be closed with a block for Damien Linnane for incivility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Response for admins: As should be indicated by my 14 year editing history, and my last post, me calling someone a liar is an isolated incident with extenuating circumstances. I was willing to let this go and move on, but if you take action against me please also look into L32007's edits. Turns out I was wrong. Since my last comment here they have made another biased edit at the article in question: [169]. I note Walter originally asked for a polite warning against both of us. The fact he's now asking for a block against me when I've agreed to change my behaviour, and no specific action against the SPA COI editor whose behaviour has not changed, should not be wasted on you. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I came here from Damien's talk page, but am otherwise uninvolved in this issue. From my perspective, Damien has apologised for his use of emotive language, said he won't do it again, and explained that the incident was an isolated one borne out of frustration. In my experience, it is poorly representative of his general character, so there is no "chronic, intractable behavioral problem" that merits any kind of block.
  Having said that, I believe it would be wise to use this opportunity to examine L32007's edits more closely. They've admitted above that they've been behaving like a single-purpose account. Studying their edits in detail, it comes across – to me at least – that L32007 is not editing from a neutral point of view, and one of their primary reasons for being on Wikipedia is to mitigate any criticism of this church. They've been doing this since at least July 7, 2020, and frequently removed entire sections of reliably sourced content, see this and this. The mess of IPs in article history using similar reasoning and language is also troubling, especially when multiple other users continually revert these additions, example. Coupled with the fact that L32007 cherry-picks content from sources to rephrase negative information in a more positive light for the church (see this), I believe these are "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" which may require some form of action. I'll leave it for others to postulate what form of action that may be.
  Probably shooting myself in the foot with this one: I honestly can't say I would have reacted all that differently to Damien were I in a similar situation. We all err from time to time, and it's good that Damien apologised for and learned from the experience. There are other issues here that still need to be examined though. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel I have the right to defend myself here. I am not a "single purpose account", I'm a person who has specific knowledge that contribues to wikipedia in areas where i am most able to. This edit that you say removes "entire sections of reliably sourced content", removes a section of content which references several articles most of which do not mention Hillsong (except for briefly mentioning a rumor that some contestants were Hillsong members, which was refuted by Network 10), but instead mention a church called Shirelive.. Shirelive is not Hillsong. Shirelive (now Horizon Church) is a pentecostal church with no relation except a denominational one to Hillsong. An accurate version of that content would have been something like "There was a rumor that some contestants on Australian Idol were Hillsong Church Members. This was refuted by Network Ten.", That would definitely not be notable and is why I removed the whole section. All the content about vote-stacking related to Shirelive, which is why I removed that section. You are welcome to add that content to the Horizon Church Page

You again claim that I removed sourced content here, when in truth I added more content about the affair and issues within the church, while removing an irrelevant quote which doesn't add much to the content.

In this edit, which you also called "removed entire sections of reliably sourced content", in line with discussion on the talk page I was moving this content to Frank Houston (proof) as it was noted that the section on Frank Houston in Hillsong Church was longer than his own page.

As for your comment that I am "rephras[ing] negative information", in that edit I added more context and removed excessive quotes from that section of the article. I felt this was WP:OVERQUOTING and didn't present any new information for the reader anyway.

Thank you for examining my edits, please when doing this in future examine them more closely for context before you go ahead and accuse me like this. L32007 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment : Regarding edits to the Hillsong Church article, in my opinion, edits like the one show that L32007 seems to be here mainly to POV push pro-Hillsong agenda.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a Talk Thread about this edit that provides some context as to why I made it. And at least signals that an edit of SOME kind was warranted. The consensus was to remove the problematic wording that i was trying to correct. L32007 (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That edit clarifies that the belief position is based on personhood, not biological facts. That edit has no "pro-hillson agenda", that's absurd.L32007 (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In defence of my edit history: This article has serious problems with people coming in with bias adding their unsourced opinions and pushing an agenda. Yes, I might personally be biased in favour of Christianity, but I am only making edits to make the article NPOV, not to introduce my POV. There is clear bias/motive in some editors when an unsourced claim that the prime minister of the country is a member of the church can remain unchallenged when it is public knowledge and also listed on a different article of wikipedia that he is a member of Horizon Church. It's also troubling that a pastor of Influencers Church who fakes cancer to hide a pornography addiction gets a section on the wikipedia page for Hillsong Church but isn't mentioned **at all** on the article for the church that he was leading at the time, but because he can be linked to Hillsong Church by fact that he was invited to write a song that was featured on a hillsong church album, it gets added instead to the Hillsong controversy section. From memory the cancer scandal was a big thing that shook the Adelaide Church-sphere, and shook influencers church leading to a huge loss of members -- why it was included on Hillsong's page can only be put down to a POV push. Or how about when Horizon Church and the AOG are linked to alleged vote stacking in a reality TV show, it gets added to this article, and not the AOG's article or Horrizon Churches article -- solely based on the fact that there is a tenous link to Hillsong (a false rumor mentioned in the news articles that Hillsong has a contestant on the show, completely irrelevant to the vote stacking). There are people pushing their POV on this article by strategically inserting content selected to push a negative POV. It's not me, my goal with this article has been to balance it -- that's why I've spent more time on this article than others -- because of the issues I have identified. There are more examples, but I'm on holiday right now. L32007 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that we've gone well into the territory of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Three people have explained to L32007 what the problem is with his edits, and in each case L32007 refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem on any level, and just insists the other person is wrong. As per my first post here, L32007 making factually inaccurate edits to defend the church's reputation goes back at least 3 years, though it's possible it extends many years before that, as I only made the time to do spot checks back till 2018. People reverting their edits clearly explain their reason for doing so, yet L32007 continues to make the same type of edits that have been reverted with explanation time and time again, which is why I stopped AGF in the first place. And lets be reminded this issue only escalated after they refused to respond to criticism of their behaviour on the article's talk page (and, of course, how I reacted to this refusal to discuss the root issue). As I have recently noted on the article's talk page, L32007 appears to have a completely different set of rules for themselves than for everyone else. On January 20 this year, they said they had removed some criticism of the church because it was unsourced (which of course was fine)[170]. Yet only five days later he added an unreferenced statement to defend the church's reputation (no reports of COVID at a church camp)[171]. I have nothing further to add regarding these new commenters and L32007's responses, though I will point out this in closing. Does anyone see something problematic with this comment here? [172] L32007 does not refer to Hillsong critic Tanya Levin by name, and only says we should not listen to her because "it's a woman ... trying to sell a book" (emphasis mine). Why would you mention gender at all (as opposed to just using her name), unless you considered her gender part of the reason why her opinion should not be valued. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologise for my gendered language. I should have done this earlier but I admit my ego got in the way. I was trying to emphasise that a single person trying to sell their wares via their sharing grievences isn't notable and forms a indiscriminate list of grievences. WP:CRIT says "Great care should be taken that the [criticism] section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints." However, that's no excuse for the way I phrased that and I will do better.

I have addressed the rest of your comment in the talk page where you brought my edit re: COVID up. People revert and edit other peoples work all the time, it's how we achieve consensus. The only person not willing to participate in discussion to make articles better appears to be you. I have nothing further to add regarding your comments. L32007 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@L32007: Your comments about some info being in a Hillsong article and not in another article depend on who edits which articles; many articles are poorer articles; generally it depends on how much editing each gets, and by whom. It is not valid for you to compare articles like this and conclude that there is bias in Wikipedia against your favorite church. If you feel that some of those news events could also be covered in other articles, you are free to add them to the other article, which would be more appropriate then deleting sourced content. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Alleged interference in RfC by DePiep

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

---

• Sandbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Periodic table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

---

I regret the need to be here but this matter concerns a currently open RfC.

I recently initiated an RfC.[173] After the RfC statement section itself, there is a subsection for Votes and a subsection for Talk, notes, questions, suggestions.

User:DePiep then posted a question to the RfC statement section itself.[174]

I effectively boldly reverted DePeip’s edit by moving his question to the RfC Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection, and added my answer to his question.[175] I also asked DePiep to, “Please do not edit my rfc statement” adding that the place for questions is the RfC Talk etc. sub-section.

DePiep has now reverted my revert[176] and added a “serious warning” to my talk page,[177] saying he is surprised to have to tell me, once more, on how to behave in a discussion; that my revert of his edit was unacceptable, including my “misleading” edit summary; that I’ll understand this is tearing his patience with me and my editing behaviour; that there are other paths for me to walk if I have questions or issues “(but not me is gonna point them out to you any more)”. Further, "I will not accept you breaking or spoiling a discussion. So best consider this as a serious warning."

DePiep has also added a Glossary to the RfC statement section itself, without consulting me as the initiator of the RfC, and ignoring my previous request to please not edit my RfC statement.

In bringing my allegations here I am only looking to run the RfC free from interference of this kind by DePiep, and to be free from incivil postings to my talk page.

If this is an inappropriate forum to raise allegations and concerns of this nature I will be happy to raise them via another avenue.

Thank you. I’ve tried to be polite. If I’m at fault I am happy to be corrected. Sandbh (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will reply later on. Most clarifying diffs will be from the RfCs history. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, RE: why ask for "votes" instead of comments, in an RfC? Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes. RfC's are structured that way sometimes, which I suppose aims to reduce threaded discussion in the !vote list, largely relegating these to a 'discussion' subsection (personally, I'm not a fan of that format). But that isn't even the point. You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text. I'm a bit surprised that I even need to tell an experienced editor not to do that, yet here we are. Anyway, I have removed the "question." El_C 11:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C:

(1) Sandbh initially, with the RfC opening post, named the section ==Votes== [178], no negating exclamation mark. So I asked "why?" [179]. Then a third editor changed the section title, noting WP:NOVOTE in their editsummary [180]. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(2) From WP:RFC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template" (italics added).

So, El_C, could you check these two statements, and reply approprately (ie, I expect some form of withdrawal/correction in both). Since this is ANI, I may expect & request carefulness. Your writing, including the quotes, reads like undue reproach. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, prefacing "vote" with an exclamation mark isn't really that decisive, even if I might have started my warning to you with that (as that is what's being displayed atm). The point is that you're not allowed to intrude right onto the middle of an RfC's opening text. That you try to sidestep this crux rather than acknowledge it, is a problem, I find. El_C 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"right in the middle of"? It was straight after their signature, and before the "Vote" section [181]. Well, you may differ on the importance of a Vote-On-RfC setup, but I reject your repeated notion of bad faith or disruption. Adding scare-quotes around my question is not appropriate. After my clarifications, you still have not expained what trespassing happened. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, right in the middle of it. The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below. You broke the cohesion of the RfC opening text with your "question." Please don't do that again. If you want to challenge the RfC's formatting, you can create your own subsection, without otherwise hijacking the flow of RfC opening. El_C 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pls check the edit. Now, I asked questions re your statements (about my edits) here, but did not find answers. And also since you keep using so-called-quotes re my posts ie assuming bad faith, I cannot help you any further. Your conclusions are incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Even still, it is inside the RfC opening (above the !votes), which isn't really the place for a threaded discussion. That's where the RfC author can elaborate a bit or leave as is. And I don't need your help. I've warned you against inappropriately intruding onto the RfC opening field and I've warned Sandbh against clerking the RfC. There's not much else to say. Yes, I used quotes for "question," because what does it even have to do with the RfC opening (its substance)? You can get the same emphasis from a subsection, without interrupting its flow, remains my point. El_C 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfair and incorrect subthread, see my re below. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: DePiep has now added commentary immediately after my vote, rather than adding such comments to the Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection.[182]. I thanked him for this edit and then boldly reverted it, saying, “Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section”.[183] DePiep reverted my revert, commenting, “"it is a discussion. Read WP:RFC. Do not change my edits. Stop tit-for-tat."[184]. While I stand ready to be corrected, I regard these alleged actions by DePiep as a form of vandalism, misguided as it may be. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Sandbh, you don't get to clerk an RfC you launched like this. You don't get to compel folks against engaging in threaded discussion in the !vote section. It's a recommendation which is ultimately at the discretion of individual contributors. El_C 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reply to the report by DePiep. The interactions in a timeline:

A. Sandbh initiated the RfC, with section title ===Votes== (not !Votes) [185]. Because of my concerns for a too limited discussion (by vote tallying), I asked to change this sectiontitle to aim for true discussion, with me consulting & linking WP:RFC [186]. As recommended by WP:RFC, I posted this question right below the RfC question & signing, and before the (first, level-===) discussion section. A 3rd and a 4th editor then changed this title [187] [188] (@XOR'easter and YBG:). Answered, case closed, AFAIK. (But: see interactions E below).

B. I also asked Sandbh for talkflow layout edit re bullet usage [189], which was responded to by a 3rd user, coordinated. Good process, no issue, AFAIK.

C. Sandbh changed my post, with editsummary saying "revert" [190]. I reverted this manipulation manually [191], citing WP:TALKO: "do not edit other editor's comment". [192] On their talkpage, I wrote a note/warning. For the record: Sandbh is involved in this RfC, and the solution I hinted at is that a 3rd, uninvolved editor could be asked to check and make such edits if considered helpful or needed.

D. I made two regular contributions to the discussion [193] [194].

E. To my astonishment, Sandbh reverted (removed) my second contribution [195], es stating Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section. IOW, still a "vote" tallying approach. (I reinstated my post [196]).

Z. As a short summary: I think that Sandbh, being an involved editor in this RfC, should not make discussion-flow or -restructuring edits. Especially not wrt other editor's posts, or by changing the argumentation flow afterwards. From this I asked twice for structure edit, and boldly reinstated my own posts. Then, in the end Sandbh still stating "Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes [sic, DePiep] section" [197], indicates that my concerns were right.

-DePiep (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Replies to Sandbh's statements and behaviour, by DePiep

As described above, I handled by WP:RFC guidance, not blindly but also because it makes sense to me in improving the RfC discussion quality. Let me quote once more: WP:RFC # Responding to an RfC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template". I did so, asking a question, which was acknowledged by two(!) other editors [198] [199]. (When this change was made, already 3 ?Votes were posted i.e., discussion was happening; so it is good practice the Question should stay to clarify late changes to the discussion setup. But alas it was removed [200] for the wrong reasons).

By that same WP:RFC quote, for example the detail "add ... unbiased statement immediately below", I added a glossary (since !Votes seemed to divert by unclarities). In no way or sense dit Sandbh proposed improvements &tc. the Glossary: instead, they filed an ANI report.

Sandbh deleted my question. I reverted (manually), citing WP:TALKO: do not change another editor's post. I also notified Sandbh of this obvious error, adding the word warning as it is not the first time they did so [201].

I added two content contributions. Sandbh deleted one content contribution. The es: Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section. Note that this was after Sandbh posted this report, and it repeated their original intention to go WP:VOTE tallying.

Aggravating circumstances are that (1) This is not a talkpage, but an RfC, and (2) Sandbh is initiator of the RfC and so involved editor.

My first conclusion is that the Sandbh's OP report here does not show any trespassing by me. Not a guideline, nor re good editing behaviour & intentions.

My second conclusion is, that Sandbh has posted this ANI report too frivolously, accusing an editor without sound base and without proper reference (such as understanding guidelines, WP:RFC, ...). This is requiring loads of editor's energy, especially mine but not mine alone, to resolve. It also reduces the quality of the actual RfC discussion at hand.

My third conclusion is that research for this ANI thread shows that Sandbh is disrupting the RFC repeatedly, and into a broken ineffective discussion. They do so by claiming WP:OWNERSHIP (both in approach as in disruptive editing), inclusing the procedural discussion flow (restructuring the discussion, clerking other persons edits), by misforming the discussion setup, and by changing other editors content(!) contributions. Until "now", that is Report time 10:05, 22 Jan 2022 (UTC), this could go as immaterial and solvable by proper talks (eg at right page & place). However, since and when these disruptions reappear, it might be necessary to impose restrictions to Sandbh's editing in this area. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the above sequence of events as posted by DePeip, but not the interpretation and omissions.

A. As El_C noted, posting what DePieP posted into the RfC statement before the Vote section was inappropriate.[202]

C. I did not "change" DePiep’s post, I manually reverted it and moved it into the discussion section and, in response to DePiep’s question/concern about Voting, I replied as follows: "I put the rfc as a question. A "vote" then is an expression of one's wish or choice with respect to the question."[203] DePiep ignores BRD, reverts my revert,[204] and posts an incivil "serious warning" to my talk page.[205]

D. I reverted DePiep’s contribution to the RfC since it was a commentary on the reasons for my vote, posted straight after my vote.[206] That was my bad, as El_C noted.[207], as ack by me.[208] DePiep ignores BRD and reverts my revert.

As DePiep noted, I asked him to add comments or discussion to the Votes section, in this edit[209] summary, a request which he has ignored.

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you.

I acknowledge your advice that an RfC nominator does not have a clerking role in the running of the RfC.

I was following the example at Separate votes from discussion. In this case I recorded my vote along with a 90-word summary of my reasons. DePeip adds a 240-word commentary[210] to my vote, setting out his multiple disagreements with my vote reasoning as opposed to doing so in the Discussion sub-section of the Rfc. In closing his commentary to my vote, DePiep refers to what "we should choose" and asks people to also see his own vote. I feel this represents less-than-civil, disruptive behaviour on his part. How do you see it?

Please be further advised El_C that I intend to boldly remove (effectively via reversion) the Glossary that DePiep unilaterally added to the RfC[211], since I allege that it is biased, in breach of WP:RFC Responding_to_an_RfC, and adds content not germane to the RfC. My reversion edit summary will ask DePiep to please follow BRD however I expect he will revert my revert rather than follow WP:BRD (but I live in hope). Respectfully, Sandbh (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandbh, as the filer, the RfC opening is your domain (within reason) and any further additions or adjustments to it should enjoy a rough consensus. So set it as you've originally intended. There really shouldn't be any further issues with the RfC structure. About Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate votes from discussion: I don't really know what that page is. It isn't labeled as a policy or guideline or even an information page or even even an essay. Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is all we get. Was it just split from the main RFC page? Who knows. Regardless, it opens with All of these formats are optional and voluntary (bold in the original), which I think is pretty key.

To that: my main point was that outside the opening, RfCs are generally free-flowing. In some instances, they'd also have an extended discussion subsection (the Survery/Discussion model), and additional subsections as needed. Also, sometime these will end up being conducted with clearly-defined constraints on what's allowed to be said on what section, even strict constraints. Which tends to be either the product of agreement among those not knowing that that is optional, or those who do know it's optional but still agree to run it this way.

Either way, as mentioned, I'm not a fan of strict constraints, mysef, which no one participant can decree by fiat. If there's a rough consensus to do anything like that, then, sure, I guess. I still think it's a generally bad idea, but to each their own. Anyway, hope that makes sense and hope it's gonna be smooth sailing from now on. El_C 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not Again – It appeared that the community might have seen a break from the fights between User:Sandbh and User:DePiep and others over the periodic table. There were at least seven trips to WP:ANI in 2020 (as listed by CaptainEek):
• First ANI thread in August
• Second ANI thread, about ELEM in general More trouble with Sandbh and also User:DePiep. I am not making DePiep a party to the case at time of filing, but I do wonder if more than just Sandbh and Double Sharp are the problem here
• The third and almost productive trip to ANI
• The fourth time at ANI
• A fifth! journey to ANI. If only you got free airline miles for that many trips
• One of several threads where EdChem gallantly tried to mediate

Then User:CaptainEek (not an arb at the time) filed a Request for Arbitration: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=990863692#Elements

I recommended at the time that ArbCom accept the case, and consider whether any of the regular combatants should be topic-banned, and whether DePiep was a net negative to the encyclopedia, but the case was declined. Things then have been quiet for about a year. Now we have this. It appears that DePiep is complicating an effort by Sandbh to address the continuing controversy over the periodic table. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite a sloppy approach, User:Robert McClenon, and so damaging by low quality. Except for names reappearing, you have not established any serious connection between the 2020 set and this thread. AFAIK, invoking Arbcom (you propose) is not a sort of extended ANI. It is, well, to Save The Project (ie Wikipedia). You have not pointed out —not even started to— explaining why this ANI would not be sufficient in issue solving. After all, the only issue here is a non-optimal RfC; no mainspace page even affected. On top of this, you started drawing conclusions (calling for Arbcom and including a randomly-targeted, one-sided topicban still without explanation below) with this ANI thread barely having any analysis, and surely not having my response. I suggest to ignore this post, as it does not aim at conflict resolving. -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, re El_C

• User:El_C has posted mistaken claims in this ANI, and my initial replies have not effected into corrections. So I want to set the record straight. I do so outside of the main thread, as it would disturb the regular discussion flow (the El_C subthread should not be part of).

El_C: [212] Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes— wrong. Here their initial RfC post says: ===Votes===, without exclamation mark. BTW, following my question re this, it was later corrected by a 3rd and 4th editor [213][214] (so: good process). In case one migh consider this minor, I note that Sandbh expressed explicitly that they intended this section to be vote-tallying, by deleting an indented content reply: "Please do not add comments or discussion ...". I am still flabbergasted.

El_C: You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text— 1-BF, 2-wrong. No reason to put my quesion in ""-quotes, casting explicit a BF accusation. El_C keeps doing this, four times, intentionally then. Next, I added my question between the RfC-signing and the ===Votes=== header i.e. discussion section:

<RfC header>
Should ... ? [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

::{{@Sandbh}} Why ... ? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 05:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

===Votes===
...

This placement is fully in compliance with WP:RfC:

If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.

With these wrongs, the paternalistic ... that I even need to tell an experienced editor ... is out of place.

El_C: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1067236917&oldid=1067236630&diffmode=source] The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below is incorrect twice: there was no "elaboration immediately below" (see code quote above): what followed was a sectionheader. And I do not see what the bot-remark mean. Is it a non-signing? Should I have researched who signed it? I consider this, eh, irrelevant. In total: "immediately below the RfC question" WP:RFC says, and so I did.

I elaborate here this extensively because El_C repeated these wrongs and attitude after I pointed out these wrongs, my edit's backgrounds, and the notion that their ""-quotes are expressing BF. Misreading a diff can happen, but repeating so after being informed is inacceptable. Especially since El_C bases their conclusions on these wrongs, these are obviously incorrect and also harmful (for the thread, for editors involved). I propose to collapse that subthread as not relevant, and not use it in any way for this thread. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DePeip, here's what you posted right under the RfC template, and before the Vote subsection, and the Discussion subsection:

"{@Sandbh}} Why at all do you call for Votes? How does that improve Comments & discussion, as WP:RfC defines & asks for?"

These questions did not have anything to do with the wording of the RfC which was "Should the periodic table in the lede be an 18-column table or a 32-column table?" Your questions did not ask me to improve the wording of the RfC, nor did they represent an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. In the event, what was immediately below the RfC template was a "Vote" subsection and "Talk, notes, questions, suggestions" subsection. While I have my shortcomings too, which I try to overcome, common courtesy and talk flow considerations would suggest placing the questions into the latter subsection. Sandbh (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

*Sigh* DePiep, were we not past that at this point? Neither one of you should be messing with the RfC's format for whatever reason, them by clerking it, and you with your format question in and any other adjustments to the opening. I've already warned both of you against doing that and other than that, I'm done here. El_C 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Now it's "the opening" (but, what is?)? Why can't you just read & reply to my actual post? Why am I supposed to guess your personal preferences, presented afterward as autoritative? Why should I discard that quote and the whole of WP:RFC? And, maybe relevant, why can't you admit & correct the wrongs I pointed out repeatedly? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Now it's "the opening" (but, what is?)? That wen't over my head. Anyway, I admitted my errors about the timeline, but my basic warning to you not to mess with the RfC opening, that hasn't changed. It was inappropriate of you in that instance, which I am authorized to determine, and warn you against, as you are to appeal. Which maybe this subsection is...? Hard to tell. Outside of yourself, Sandbh, and Robert McClenon (all of you with some history, it seems), there seems to be little interest in this ANI report atm, anyway. El_C 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are talking from authority, so you are supposed to explain your statements. You cannot just ididnthearthat and then throw in your own approach including "warnings" ie threats and then walk away. I have pointed to flaws and wrongs. You started using wording the opening, which is mistifying, and so incidentally evades a point you're expected to reply to. Don't mix or lump together your replies to Sandbh and to me. If you've admitted errors "about the timeline" (huh?) and you still come to the same conclusions, you have not admitted an ounce of essence. Why can't I find a clarification from you for the contradiction between the quote I quoted and your claims? Honest question: did you even read my exposé, check the diffs, sought the reasoning behind it? -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, as far as I'm concerned, you are both responsible for the confused state of the RfC's opening prior to my intervention. I don't know what you mean by you have not admitted an ounce of essence —again, over my head— but I'd admit that I'm unable to tell which of you is more to blame for the disruption to that RfC.

If you want me to clarify that you've both been equally warned (and that any lumping together is by default), sure. My main purpose was to get the RfC to be not broken and disrupted, so my actions should only be viewed a stop-gap measure to achieve that. ATM, I don't really care to look into any longstanding dispute between you two. El_C 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban DePiep

I propose that User:DePiep be topic-banned from chemistry-related topics.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this report leads to your proposal. (Could you at least provide diffs for what you think is transgressive?) Above, I have described:

- I asked a question re discussion setup [215], which was acknowedged by a 3rd [216] and 4th [217] editor.

- I asked a question about talkpage layout (bullet usage) [218], which was acknowledged by adressee in coordination with 3rd editor [219],

- I posted two contributions to the discussion, one of which was deleted by involved and complaining editor Sandbh [220] (astonishingly, I add).

Please reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've had many interactions with DePiep outside of this topic area, running from cooperative to contentious, and as such I have watched this conflict as a talk-page stalker for several years now. This conflict would not exist in this state without considerable violations of courtesy, policy, and cooperation by Sandbh, and any topic ban that singles out another editor and does not include them is highly problematic. There is a distinct lack of WP:Civility on all sides in this conflict, and Sandbh's conduct with this recent RfC brings up some pretty serious WP:OWN concerns. The RfC doesn't belong to Sandbh, and they have no right to impose their preferred format to the discussion, nor to remove other people's content because they don't follow some arbitrary rule. That having been said, DePiep's adding a glossary was needlessly provocative, and this is unfortunately only one example of this kind of activity. Frankly, both of these editors have been adding a lot more heat than light to this subject area for quite a while now, and neither of them have been putting in the work to resolve their issues with each other. So if you want to bring in a topic ban, you're going to need to cast a much wider net than just DePiep. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I previously acknowledged at WP:ANI that I was wrong to revert one of DePiep's posts to the RfC.[221] It was open to DePiep to observe WP:BRD rather than to revert my revert, and to revert the subsequent reverts I made per WP:BOLD. I previously acknowledged at WP:ANI the warning given to me by El_C that I don't get to clerk the RfC [222]. On heat v light, in this subject area (of the periodic table), and in the past six months, I made one edit—a revert, including giving reasons.[223] My revert was reverted by DePiep[224] (with no supporting comments), rather than following WP:BRD. I've further been active in attempting to bring nonmetal up to FAC status and recently achieved six supports and one oppose. While the oppose was from DePiep I don't regard that as having anything to do with this discussion. Indeed, I took up some of his suggestions and where I didnt, I set out of my reasoning. Thank you for the opportunity to give an account of my actions. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I would suggest that a topic ban from the periodic table would be more in order than one from chemistry in general. While DePiep is with some frequency a corrosive element wherever they edit (pun intended), it's been my observation that this is much more strongly the case when they edit concerning the periodic table. Editing in that subject area would be much less contentious without their participation, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note I am going to request closure of this thread as the lead admin has said that he sees no reason to do anything more.[225] However, if things seriously "derail," or there is otherwise significant misconduct, anybody can come back with a concise request for a topic ban or other sanctions for any involved editor. This thread has become sufficiently convoluted that it would be beneficial to have a reset should that be necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Two Non-Proposals

I will throw out two bad ideas for how to resolve this dispute, to recommend against them, in case they come up during this thread.

• Interaction ban between DePiep and Sandbh. These are two editors who do not like each other, but I think that an interaction ban is a bad idea because they frequently edit in the same areas, the elements and the periodic table, so that an interaction ban could be gamed to acquire a first mover advantage. It might seem like a good idea, but is a bad idea.
• Closing this thread with no action. These editors have been quarreling over the formatting of the periodic table for too long, and will continue to come back here if this thread is just closed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I will also comment that these editors are quarreling over a matter of formatting. There is no underlying scientific difference between different formats of the periodic table. Some chemists recognize that any form of the periodic table is useful for teaching, and that the periodic table is not used for research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What to do, what to do?? One editor has a block log that is quite long and illustrious. The other has never been blocked, in more than a decade. This does point to the possibility of the first editor getting banned if they persist. In addition, the RFC appears to be working. To help it be hospitable for new arrivals, I have collapse two long, unhelpful walls of text. If the litigants agree to leave it that way and let more editors comment freely, I think the RFC will reach a clear resolution. I think we should keep this thread open and see if the litigants agree to let the RFC run its course. If that happens, no action will be needed. If they prove that they can't restrain themselves, I recommend renewing the request for arbitration. It was moving towards acceptance last time until the involved parties decided to back down and be more collegial. Should we need to go back a second time, I don't think that strategy will work again. We will get a case, and editor #1 with the long block log is likely to get banned. Also, attacking El C [226] for trying to mediate this dispute is not a good look, DePiep. I hope you follow my advice to curtail the hostility and put down the WP:CUDGEL.[227] Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose you collapsing my contribution at the RfC. You have not even clarified why or how that has to do with this ANI thread. You are directly interfering and judging in an ongoing RfC? I object your "no good look" qualification: I may expect my points to be addressed. -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

btw User talk:Jehochman I think your opening line here is incorrect. Pls check you claims. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep exists. I was unaware of this until now. El_C 19:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Good find, Mr. C. DePiep, what's wrong with One editor has a block log that is quite long and illustrious.[228] Most of these blocks are from Wikipedia A-listers, and the only one of the dozen was overturned. ^Talk 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, your editing restriction gives me wide latitude in which to sanction you. Now, because I got a lot of the original details wrong, though as I keep mentioning, not the crux, I'm not gonna do that at this point. About the crux and about your objection to being "lumped" together with your opponent wrt the RfC disruption, I'll quote what Vanisaac said (in part, though I recommend reading his comment in full):

Frankly, both of these editors have been adding a lot more heat than light to this subject area for quite a while now, and neither of them have been putting in the work to resolve their issues with each other (diff).

So in light of that, I'd submit to you that it's in your best interest to de-escalate rather than keep throwing more fuel to the fire. Because rightly or not, sooner or later that's gonna catch up with you (again). And, if your opponent (longstanding opponent, as Vanisaac notes) stays relatively calm when you do not, you're greatly disadvantaged. Rightly or wrongly. Good to keep in mind. El_C 01:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I am free to explain and defend myself, especially in an ANI report I was dragged in to. Anyone making judgements is supposed to digest my replies. I note that in your very first post here, you added ""-quotes to my question. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Jehochman and El C: please take note [229] [230] [231]. It also illustrates why I use the wording "frivolous reporting". I don't know why you did not see it. With this, you might want to reasses your reasonings and conclusions. -DePiep (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• DePiep, please understand their faults don’t excuse you. You and they are two independent people. If you get riled up by some other editor who acts badly, stay away from them. If they are indeed up to no good, others will notice and do something about it. When you get into the action, it draws attention from them towards you. I know from my own recent experience that it can be hard or impossible to disengage when you see somebody ruining an article (in your view). You must still disengage or you will risk getting the sanction. The powers here are often humorless, and unforgiving. Enough of this. Just don’t post to any of these pages further. Go edit something else and avoid your nemesis. Jehochman ^Talk 06:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not claim any excuse. At all. Apparently it was necessary to completify the record, since you missed this information. Because this is new & relevant, I asked you to reconsider your own statements conclusions, for starters in your 19:05 What to do post opening (now shown to be incorrect as we have seen). BTW Do we know why this did not show up? Tech glitch?

I am surprised you are forbidding me to add this information. Why should I not fix missing information? You missed it, so I added it, at your own request. Worrying is, that you did cheer one find, and reject-with-admonishing another one. I expect unbiased approach. Please stop the "does not look good" blanket replies. If there are mistakes, I can point them out and ask for a rethink. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I add: it was you not me who introduced the logs here. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: bizzy in RL from now, will reply later today. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, again, I do not require you to reply. I'm busy in IRL too, which is why I'm unlikely to do anything else here unless things seriously derail. Your editing restriction wasn't seen, at least by me, until your block log was mentioned (where I clicked on the link). Your opponent past TBANs weren't seen, at least by me, because no one had pointed them out (I don't think), and omniscience is otherwise hard to come by. El_C 14:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason for the omission is not that relevant, I assume tech. Point is that when I add it to complete the set, I do not expect to be reproached. Instead, I expect Jehochman to reconsider and redact their conclusions. -DePiep (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• My recap. @El C and Jehochman:I will give an overview of the main points as I see them. I have replied to the OP report in two paragraphs. No other editor replied nor did questions follow. Earlier, El_C had made posts that contained wrongs like factual errors. I pointed these out, most comprehensively in § For the record, re El C. I got no response (no correction, no change of conclusions & judgements). Then Jehochman entered, latching onto a late state of affairs (ie, not from OP report onwards). In their opening sentence re the logs, there was an omission. In second note I filled it, expecting a change of text and of judgement. After all, their basic facts had changed. This did not happen. Still later, El_C introduced the log history as an argument to maintain their judgements. I object once again: their statements and judgements on recent edits based on wrong facts, cannot be made correct by referring to earlier history. The facts are still wrong so conclusions wrong. With all this, I have read (correct me if I'm wrong) personal attitudes by both editors like making judgements personal (individual) and unbalanced. With this, I see an explicit unwillingness to respond to the issues and objections I made. I do not see how one can make a balanced, fair and helpful judgement based on this. At this time, there were reproaches that I should not post, not react to other editors posts, should not fill in an factual relevant omission. I find this strange, as being the reported and accused editor here, I see it as a right to explain and defend myself. If texts are too long, one could propose cooperated reduction like collapse. I don't see why all this could "look bad". Of course one cannot be forced to digest posts, but there is no argument for underinformed, prejudiced or biased conclusions. To me it looks that, while mostly discussing circumstances, actual trespassings & diffs have not or scarcely been thoroughly or convincingly established. -DePiep (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I note a remarkable lack of diffs. Hard to defend against gossip. -DePiep (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Update

• It pains and saddens me to report that DePiep has once again re-reverted,[232] this time a revert of mine,[233] without observing the civility of WP:BRD. The page in question is the nonmetal article that is the subject of the RfC was subject to a recent FAC.  [amendment by Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)]
• My WP:BOLD revert was of an edit by YBG; the two of us have been working together on the nonmetal article for some time, including during its FAC nomination. I received a civility barnstar for this work.
• As User:Jehochman noted, the RfC itself has been proceeding relatively smoothly since I posted my complaint here.
• I have twice acknowledged here at ANI that I was wrong to revert two of DePiep's edits. While I actioned these reverts in good faith they showed ignorance on my part of the applicable policy. @DePiep: I apologise to you for revering your edits.
• As noted, DePiep and I sometimes edit in the same areas. In my experience this has usually occurred without fuss. When I ask questions of DePiep his responses are usually civil.
• I make no claim to be angelic and I strive to observe WP policy, and to learn from my mistakes
• My general impression of DePiep's responses here are that they are hostile in tone; disrespectful of this forum and other editors involved in this thread including User:El_C and User:Jehochman; exemplary of WP:BLUDGEON-like behavior; and inconsistent with the indefinite editing restrictions he is under. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not nice to facilitate the downfall of another editor. Please stop reverting and use the talk page as it is meant to be. Make an earnest effort to consider each other’s opinions. Show respect and extend the Olive branch. If it gets thrown back in your face, somebody will notice and do something about it. There is no need to come here wringing your hands, looking tearful. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, which I intend to observe. I revert in good faith in accordance with WP:BRD. Consistent with that practice, and civility, I do not revert reverts. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by Aydın memmedov2000

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

---

• Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[234]
2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[235] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[236]
4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[237]
5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[238]
6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[239]
7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[240]
8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[241]
9. Warned on numerous occassions.[242]-[243]-[244]-[245]

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

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

• UPDATE: They are now actively involved in WP:CANVAS designating other editors by their supposed ethnic background (in response to another, disruptive account who's now blocked[246]).

1. "The last article I wrote is being retracted by an Armenian trying to forcibly delete it, please help"[247] (on VisionCurve's talk page)
2. "The last article I wrote is being retracted by an Armenian trying to forcibly delete it, please help."[248] (on Grandmaster's talk page)
3. Google translate (Turkish) "Please help me !! In my last article (Azerbaijan old maps) it is constantly being deleted by an Armenian, please do something"[249] (on Beshogur's talk page)

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

More proxy editing, on Beshogur's talk page:

1. Aydin Memmedov2000 (Google translate, Turkish): "Malecomes insults me and deletes my articles I don't know how to report it so I need your help please report this guy"[250]
2. Beshogur's reply: "I'll do it".[251]

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted a rather weird random copy-paste text (from [252]) he posted on my talk page, which led him to write this afterwards; I understand that you hold a grudge against me. Don't worry, I won't bother you any more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an absolute mess. He has created several articles with pseudo-history Azeri blogs as sources. See this talk page for example [253]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

More:

1. "There is no reason to delete this page. An Armenian requested the deletion. It is clear that this is ethnic nationalism."[254]

Is there a reason why admins are putting a blind eye to this? This case has been open for many days, and the disruption is still ongoing. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As per aforementioned discussion, I propose a 3-month topic ban an indefinite topic ban for user "Aydın memmedov2000" on WP:AA2-related articles, broadly construed. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - I've unfortunately had to revert a lot of this users edits, including just recently. Many of them were akin to the diffs posted above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - A topic ban, an indef block. Aydin memmedov2000 is clearly just not here. I am seeing no upside to this editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support the state of mind of the user is apparently a WP:Battleground with Armenians, and 3 month is the minimum time to sober anybody from that state of mind, --Armatura (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe this "new" user is a sockpuppet, see investigation (pending). Very similar behavior to the master, especially the canvassing stuff and rapidly creating articles. There were more diffs of the master canvassing, but I couldn't find all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• support: I also support an indeff block, because the NOTHERE Is strong with this one. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC) looking at the links provided about I think that the topic ban should also Include the AA area, the Azerbaijaniization article by itself is a good reason. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

I can't accept admin bullying

• Further information, User talk:VocalIndia#Speedy deletion of Chen Jinggu

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

Our article	The source[255]
... a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect	... one of the most important goddesses in Southeast China (the chief deity of the Lushan sect).... A historical shaman priestess who became ...

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

• No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The personal attacks need to stop. In the past few hours you've repeatedly called other editors "dogs" [256][257][258], "jealous [dogs]" [259], having a "poor mind" [260][261], "useless" [262], and "disgusting" [263]. DanCherek (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Akbermamps. I've also noted that "the basic facts aren't serious copyright violations." according per my experience. That's why I strongly against admin's action. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. VocalIndia (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Our article

The source[264]

... was sent away when he was three years old to be trained by the'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He wore golden armour and wielded the Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could take him anywhere in a matter of seconds. After Cheng Tong informed him of his father's death, he eventually abandoned his master's service. Given a flower basket by his master, he went to his father's camp and used the mystical tablets in the flower basket to bring him back to life. After formally introducing himself to his family, he inquired about his mother's whereabouts and, upon learning of her death at the hands of King Zhou, pledged to assist in the overthrow of King Zhou. He battled against the Shang dynasty in several engagements, dying at least once before being resurrected by his master. He was one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most competent generals, dying at the hands of Gao Jineng. His father avenged his death by killing Gao Jineng with a single blow. After his death, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies him as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains.

... was sent away at the age of three to be tutored under the 'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He was described as wearing golden armour and wielding the mystical Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could transport him to any location in mere seconds. He eventually left his master's service after hearing of his father's death by Cheng Tong. Given a flower basket by his master, he rushed to his father's camp, and brought him back to life with magical pills in the flower basket. Formally introducing himself to his family, he asked about his mother's whereabouts and after hearing of her death at the hands of King Zhou of Shang, swore to aid in bringing down King Zhou. He fought in many battles against the Shang Dynasty, dying at least once before being revived by his master. He died a permanent death at the hands of Gao Jineng, becoming one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most talented generals. His death was avenged by his father, who killed Gao Jineng with one blow. At the end of the novel, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies Huang Tianhua as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ...

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

I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.

I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[265]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.

Hold Nickar	Source[266]
Hold Nickar is a Teutonic malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors. Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar.	It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar, a malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors, or even about Alte Hoerner [...]

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

Hold Nickar	Source[267]
Hold Nickar is a patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon, according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune.	In Russia he was Hold Nickar patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon or according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune;

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

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

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

Regarding Hold Nickar, I have asked Bloodofox for an evaluation of the sources, since they know more about folklore than I do, but the article as it currently is, after reduction almost entirely by VocalIndia themself, looks like a straightforward candidate for redirecting to Nixie (folklore). However, after originally being closed as soft delete, with only one !vote, delete on exactly those grounds but without mention of redirecting as an option, the AfD was ultimately closed as keep, so I hesitate to boldly override that decision all on my lonesome. After cutting out the non-waterspirit material, VocalIndia made mention at the AfD of foreign-language Wikipedia material; that led me to look at es:Hold Nickar, and I realized that it was similar in spirit to the long version of our article, and found that a passage only loosely supported by the cited source, this archived pagan essay (mainly the weird translation of the names of Thor's goats), was a close translation of the corresponding Spanish passage, which cites the same source. I then found that VocalIndia added a translation attribution template on the talk page back in May, although I can't see any attribution in the history of the article itself, including the April edits creating it. I think VocalIndia has been misled by trusting other Wikipedians too much to have done a good job on topics they themself are unfamiliar with, and has failed to check the sources to see whether they are reliable and support the statements being made (or hasn't known enough about the field to check what reliable sources say). This may relate to their over-close paraphrasing noted above; I think a root cause may be that they are working on topics where they lack the necessary knowledge to make good editorial choices. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef This kind of uncollaborative behavior even after the block show this editor is not capable to be productive here. TolWol56 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef. Their comments on their talkpage even after being blocked indicate that they clearly aren't going to change their attitude towards other users. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support a longer block - I hate to pile on here but reading their talk page after they were blocked and seeing the inappropriate use of it, even after being warned, shows that their behavior isn't consistent with the kind of culture we (are supposed to) have here at Wikipedia. Indef doesn't mean forever and behavior can change over time, I think that they need more time to cool off. Perhaps we need to remove their talk page access too? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Finally, I'm free from 1 week ban. Firstly, I've learned many from the community. Just i know that how to control my anger. Secondly I want apologies to all and especially @Justlettersandnumbers:. Sorry for my misunderstood and rude. I'll be smart in the future. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, VocalIndia. If you are in any doubt about copyright or how to avoid copyright violation, please ping me on your talk-page. At this point, any further copyright infringement on your part is very likely to result in a block, quite probably an indefinite one. I'm willing to try to help you avoid that outcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

user:Ahecht cross-wiki disruption to make a WP:POINT

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

---

This user has recently complained about the top image on Zettai ryōiki for reasons amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zettai_ry%C5%8Diki#Top_image

And nominated https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zettai_ry%C5%8Diki_-_Bologna_Motorshow_2012.jpg as a “creep shot” (which it isn’t) in bad faith seemingly to bolster their WP:POINT. Dronebogus (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you really feel that a picture of an Italian model scratching her butt is the best image to put at the top of an article about a Japanese fashion term for exposed thighs, more power to you. Even if it isn't a creep shot, it unnecessarily gives off that vibe (most women at car shows don't pose for zoomed in pictures of them scratching themselves), and this dogmatic "it's fine because it's always been there" approach is one of the reasons this project has trouble attracting female volunteers. There are much better images on Commons to illustrate the concept of zettai ryōiki, and I'm having a hard time finding a good-faith explanation for why so many editors are insisting on leading the article with that image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Plus, I think this is possibly made only to highlight her butt and nothing else as the upper part of her body is cropped off. This rightfully deserve to be called a "creep shot". MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I reported this because I wanted an admin to review this, not drag the argument out to a third venue. I don’t have a problem with you suggesting a better image (which you didn’t), I have a problem with you nominating a file that’s in use for deletion seemingly to make a WP:POINT Dronebogus (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure what admins are supposed to evaluate about Ahecht's conduct. They voiced a legitimate concern in good faith, both here and on Commons, and you disagree with them. I'm frankly more concerned with them immediately being labelled as disruptive and dragged to ANI over it. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • They were being rude and WP:POINTy but I agree I jumped the gun. Withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see either rudeness or pointiness by Ahecht. I see an inappropriate escalation of an editor's reasonable objection to to ANI in order to try to win an argument. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am having trouble understanding how this is a "urgent incident" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problem". The most concerning thing in the entire discussion is that one of its participants has made an AN/I thread to bring administrative action against someone who disagreed with them on a talk page (about a photograph of an ass, of all things). jp×g 07:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have to agree this seems way unnecessary escalation when an editor has simply expressed their concerns with something in a reasonable fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Dawit S Gondaria ignoring information within source materials and resorting to personal attacks

Dawit removed properly cited information (and citations), leaving other information uncited, broke a citation because the way I did it was supposedly wrong, changed another citation's parameters so that the information it provided was incorrect (again, because I supposedly did it wrong, and removed information without providing a source to the contrary. His behaviour at his talk page and that of the article in question is getting to be uncivil, attacking my intelligence here, and insulting the work I did at Qene here. I've had to clean up his edits, which are often grammatically confusing, if not outright wrong, and strangely formatted, which kind of brings WP:COMPETENCE into the equation as well. I'm not saying he isn't a competent person per se, just that it's quite tedious to clean up after him. Thiqq (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thiqq needs self reflection regarding WP:COMPETENCE. The article Qene user wrote gives undue weight to Geez composition, including in the lead. There's no mention of Amharic composition. Most published Qene are above and beyond in Amharic. Spoken/performed Qene are almost always in Amharic not Geez which is a vernacularly extinct language. Just like the French and Italian poets perform mostly in their spoken languages (French/Italian) and not Latin, the same applies to Qene. There's nothing on the contemporary process, which doesn't involve Geez, you can directly write poems using Amharic fidal.● Thiqq needs to learn to add ISBN/OCLC to avoid confusion when citing sources as she did with Molvaer.● As for Bete Amhara [[268]] i don't have to provide squat, the sources are very clear on the locations of Qene schools which are discussed at [[269]], which extends beyond the geography of Bete Amhara, a term Thiqq choose, not mentioned in the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

More (not undue) weight was given to Ge'ez because I had only written about the origin of qene. You can write about its development and contemporary practice by adding more information, but there's no reason to remove that regarding Ge'ez. As for your ISBN comment, I included the LCCN for Levine's book, so it's clearly not something I need to learn. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I don't know how to do something, not to mention the fact that the ISBN wouldn't have changed the mistake you made in assuming Molvaer was the editor, so don't be snarky. Bete Amhara is the region that Levine discusses. When I said you didn't provide a source, I meant that you didn't provide a source that defines Bete Amhara as not including Gojjam, Gondar, and Begemder. I only included a link to it so anyone who reads the article can go there for further reading on the region. Also, I'm a man, not a woman. Thiqq (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Princeton source not Levine, which you didn't provide any OCLC or ISBN [[270]] nor the names editors of the cited encyclopedia itself. ●The term Bete Amhara was your misinterpretation of Levine, which doesn't refer ‘‘Amhara country’’ as Bete Amhara, but Amhara provinces/areas as he elaborates the locations of Qene schools. I don't have to include a source that defines Bete Amhara, you shouldn't have gone with that term in the first place. Come with a sound argument why you chose a term not cited by the sources? Apologies on assumption of gender. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Update Levine book Greater Ethiopia [[271]] page 72: Quote: ‘‘Situated in what is today the southwestern part of Wello Province, the historical Amhara region was bounded on the west by the Abbai (Blue Nile) and its tributary the Bashilo river; on the north the regions of Angot and Lasta; on the east by the escarpment leading down to the Danakil Desert; and on the south by the Wanchet river’’ In this book Levine is talking historically before expansions and where Amhara first emerged. In Wax and Gold, it's easy to understand that he refers Amhara country as Amhara Provinces/Amharic speaking areas at the locations of the Qene schools, Gonj(google search Gonj) in Gojjam is west of Bashilo river. Lasta(beyond geographic range of Bete Amhara as source indicate), Bounded by Abbai to the West, Gondar is north of Abbai. Princeton further underscores locations of Qene schools. Bete Amhara doesn't encompass all the areas Levine refer to as Amhara country, the term Bete Amhara is not mentioned in the sources. The reference to Bete Amhara is historically and geographically inaccurate. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This is just a content dispute. Not ANI material. Platonk (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought it would fall under ANI because I was also concerned about conduct, not just content. But at this point I'm fine to just leave the issue alone if no one else has a problem. Thiqq (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement by @Thiqq: You can easily conclude my edits without a doubt improves the article by verifying claims and removing Thiqs errors, from demanding a page number, adding isbn, introducing subsections, [[272]],[[273]] to objection to removal of basic facts that Qene in practice is not performed in a vernacular dead language[[274]], to removing Thiqqs persistent reference to a geographical limit not expressed in the sources.[[275]]. Also responding to this [[276]] which i was about to include page 9 of Levine, which supports this edits [[277]] Scrutiny should go to Thiqqs edits and annoying conduct in the article and on my talk page, including false accusations of disruptive edits and improper use of warning templates [[278]].

Btw soon to be added in the article, medieval Amharic Qene. Process of Geez to Amharic and performed Qene in Amharic in earlier times. Contemporary process Amharic > Amharic Qene without Geez. Thiqqs assumption of Qene bet originally in Geez is only true in oral tradition, while the early verifiable documentation/extants of the 15/16/17 century extants were both in Geez and Amharic. I will be improving the article in the next few days with reliable sources, i'm also awaiting additional sources from Resource Exchange, from which i only partially can read texts from Google book. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I withdraw my complaint. Thiqq (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Draftify request

Cricket sudda21 (talk · contribs) has created 2021–22 SLC National Super League a short while ago. I am afraid, it is a copy/paste of 2021 SLC Invitational T20 League. Seems like it is not ready for the main space just yet. Can some helpful page mover could move it to draft space until Cricket sudda finishes the article. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is a stub, still, but I think it's okay for mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note that Cricket sudda21 tried to remove this section here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy/pasting should be done in accordance with WP: COPYWITHIN, isn't it? Using main space as a place to draft an article is something I have never done. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 71.114.58.144

I and another editor have reverted some of 71.114.58.144 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits, which in my opinion were BLP violations.[279][280][281] They're all on WP:ARBPIA articles, one of which was subsequently put under extended-confirmed protection. This user has received plenty of warnings so I'm wondering if a block is in order. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I revdeleted one set of edits. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on People v. Turner

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

---

Bkatcher (talk · contribs) continues to add "Affluenza" under "see also" on People v. Turner. I am aware that that is the narrative that Michele Dauber (Stanford Law Professor, noted sexual assault activist, wife of a Google engineer and family friend of the victim) wants to push. That she has tried to paint a picture of Turner as being like the affluenza kid. But some quick Googling establishes that Turner and his family were solidly middle class, with his father being an engineer and his mother being a nurse. In the meantime, the victim is the daughter of one of the most renowned psychologists in Santa Clara county. I understand how petty/asinine such an edit war may sound, but I feel that getting a mod/admin involved might be warranted. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would expect there to be a source, i.e. that the perpetrator had actually been described as "suffering" from affluenza in reliable sources. i don't see that in the article, and so absent that, I would say that the "See also" should be removed. This isn't a noticeboard for resolving content disputes, but this may cross the line into a BLP issue, so I think it's fine. Incidentally, you are required to inform Bkatcher of this report - I am about to do so. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have suggested you place this information in the article's talk page or at least include a reason in your edit summary. As it were, 'nope' didn't tell me why you were removing it. Bkatcher (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I did that the first time I removed it and you simply reverted my edit with no reason given. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean back in November? You've still yet to provide a source. 'Some quick googling' isn't a source. Seriously, we could have easily hashed this out in the article's talk page. Bkatcher (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. From https://www.romper.com/p/what-does-brock-turners-dad-do-dan-turner-has-been-vocal-about-his-sons-case-12206 "Dan Turner, who urged the sentencing judge to reconsider his son’s jail time for probation, comes from a military background and used to work as a civilian contractor for the United States Air Force, according to military documents. Turner was charged with assisting on technology projects needed to help build weaponry." As for his mom, I found her Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/in/carleen-turner-75a610198/. Salary for an air force contractor is here https://www.indeed.com/cmp/U.S.-Air-Force/salaries/Contract-Specialist. Salary for a RN is here https://nursinglicensemap.com/resources/nurse-salary/. So basically middle class as I said. You also have yet to provide a source (even a not-so-reliable one) that says the perpetrator had actually been described as "suffering" from affluenza as our mutual friend Black Kite suggested. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since no source for "affluenza" exists in the article and has not been provided on the talkpage, since this is a BLP issue I have edited through the protection and removed it. Further discussion can take place from that starting point. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Third-party edit interpolates pejorative content to my post

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

---

User:Newimpartial edited a discussion page section from what I had initially titled as "Sorry" [282] so that the title now reads "Sorry, not sorry" [283]. The section title now imputes sarcasm and WP:INCIVILITY that I didn't author and gives the equivocal impression, contrary to WP:REFACTORING guidelines (i.e. absent links to the original to clarify what I actually said and without a summary of the changes on a different page), that I titled the section as it now stands. Please offer assistance to ensure no one is misled into thinking the current title is my doing rather than Newimpartial's. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I noted on their talk page, these edits imply that Kent Dominic states "Sorry, not sorry", rather than "Sorry" - while refactoring headings can be uncontroversial, particularly on a users talk page, this is only the case when it doesn't result in a different meaning being ascribed to the author. I also noted that there is a pattern of this in Newimpartial's talk page edits; they made this ghost edit, which corrected a typo that confused Kent Dominic, and then responded to his confusion as if the typo had never existed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, having reread the exchange, I still don't see any evidence that it was my typo that confused Kent, much less that any kind of pattern on my part was involved. I initially typed nonminary for nonbinary; in their reply, Kent referred to my sentence that includes “nominary identity”, which was neither what I typed nor what I meant. None of the subsequent discussion, visible, e.g. in this diff, leads me to think that the typo played any role in Kent's reaction to my comment. So I have no reason to think I did anything untoward in correcting the typo, much less that it is part of some (nefarious?) "pattern". Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The confusion appears where they say Sorry again, but I can’t make heads or tails of your sentence that includes “nominary identity.”, which is clearly a misreading of the typo "nonminary identity", a confusion that you address in the reply made with your ghost edit. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If you understand what Kent's confusion there actually was, and what gave rise to it, you are reading that exchange more successfully than I was then or than I am now. I didn't (and don't) know what had him confused, so I just restated my understanding of things, in my inimitable way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent, this really sucks. Is there anything I can do to convince you to withdraw? Firefangledfeathers 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically, Newimpartial was wrong to change your heading. However, I gotta say they were provoked by the lengthy, circular, but spiraling downward discussion. You should have put a lid on it way earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Provocation? No. Lengthy posts? Yes. Circular? I wish. From where I stood, the goalposts weren't moving, just the rhetoric. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I would have wished, but the point of the discussion is moot now that Newimpartial has taken remedial action --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN reads Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided - which is what I believe my edit (to my own Talk page) achieved. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Newimpartial, you should not be adjusting for tone like that. I doubt that's what SECTIONHEADINGOWN suggests. El_C 03:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have already edited the section heading one more time, to achieve what I for one find to be a truly painful level of clarity and transparency. The current heading cannot reasonably be mistaken for what the editor originally posted and does accurately describe the content of the discussion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Like. Sorry you were subjected to that nonsense. El_C 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly having read that discussion, I've never seen anyone (Kent) use as many words to try and justify why they will not use a singular they, despite being repeatedly informed that they is the correct pronoun to use for the other party. Frankly, NewImpartial's change to the section header kinda fits the tone of the conversation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there is Template:They, which if the editor has specified in their preferences a gender will automatically fill in that preference, avoiding cases of accidental misgendering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Is it accurate to write "if the editor has specified"? It appears that a specification will be listed regardless of whether the editor has set one. How is it possible to avoid specifying? Or maybe more specifically, how do I specify in my preferences that I'm fine with either gender-neutral or gendered language? I only see options for "prefer gender-neutral", "prefer masculine", or "prefer feminine", not "don't care what you call me". —David Eppstein (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Good observations; good questions. I hope someone posts a response with more info. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I had missed your post about Template:They until moments ago. If certain editors use it, it would obviate most incidents like the one that ultimately resulted in this thread. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Very easy to avoid using the singular "they" (which is what I do), when conversing with an editor. Just use the editor's name. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, we remember. ;) El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Was that comment really necessary GoodDay? JCW555 talk ♠ 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's sage advice. Best to look at every editor as having no gender. Don't bring the town down, over pronouns. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unless you are conversing with They, of course. (Unfortunately you cannot because they are apparently a banned sockpuppet.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Kent Dominic, RE: However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal? And: If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me. Use singular they, not complicated. You risk a WP:BOOMERANG with these antics. El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: I offered to use that same strategy, among numerous others, which Newimpartial graciously accepted. Subsequent argument was wholly unrelated to specific instances of co-referencing editors but rather the manners in which pronouns tend to be construed by various speech participants. It seemed (and still seems) to me that Newimpartial simply didn't want to acknowledge how people in various quarters interpret certain pronouns in ways that depart considerably from ways that comport with sensibilities to the contrary. Long and short: Denying evidenced dynamics doesn't make the dynamics disappear. I don't mind being shot as the messenger, but it became apparent that the message contained historically archaic and linguistic protologisms outside Newimmpartials's comfort range to withstand. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would point out that Kent began to edit war over the heading after I told him to remove himself from my Talk page. I don't think he should have been doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's very clear that you're a writer, Kent Dominic, and more broadly an explainer. Both are generally good traits (to the extent that any trait can be good or bad) and both are traits that I believe the two of us share. I've found that in my case, I'm sometimes so eager to explain my point of view in a conversation that I overlook things the other party has said which render what I'm about to say to them incorrect, irrelevant, unnecessary, or otherwise not worth saying. My advice to you, if you're willing to take it, would be to take advantage of the opportunity Newimpartial has given you by ending the conversation on their talk page. It's a chance to reread what they've said to you, not with the intent to respond, but with the goal of understanding and considering. There are some important points in there that I think I might have missed if I was on your side of the screen. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the sentiment, User:Ezlev. I really had intended merely to apologize in the "Sorry" thread. In hindsight, I shouldn't have used what I thought would be obvious self-effacement with my "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" remark, which apparently caused the ensuing fallout. Or, perhaps I should have formatted it as nonbinary singular third-person pronoun to better signal that I was referring to nonbinary as part of a lexical category, not gender identity. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• How about everyone tries to be excellent to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Newimpartial: Heeding my edit summaries' requests would have obviated the need to go on record here, right? No need to reply since I'm glad you've subsequently relented and remedied the situation. In the most charitable way I can put this, in case you missed it: It seems that you persist in associating me with rationale that's not part of my thinking. Moreover, it seems you feel more comfortable simply denying rationale that doesn't comport with your own. Obviously, I'm not asserting that as being amenable to objective proof one way or the other, only as how you come off to me. I truly hope I can be proved wrong on both accounts. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's request for excellent behavior. But I feel that something a bit more direct is called for in this situation. I was neutral about this thread until I read the appalling thing that Kent Dominic wrote. Kent Dominic, condider this a formal warning. If you ever refer to a human as "it", I will block you. If you ever deliberately misgender another editor, I will block you. You must read Singular they and all of its references and fully understand the long history of its usage in the English language before you comment again about this issue. If, after reading all of that, you freely choose to engage in disruptive and insulting edits about this issue, then I will block you. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry User:Cullen328, can you clarify where you are seeing the use of "it" in reference to another human, as I cannot see it? If you're referring to the comment you are responding to, I don't believe either of the two uses of "it" are in reference to a person. Obviously, if Kent Dominic has used the word in such a manner then it is unacceptable, but I am not seeing the reference. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @BilledMammal: My best guess is that User:Cullen328 skimmed the first part of the "Sorry" thread and misinterpreted my initial reference to "it," and that the separate discussion of "it" further down (the part you're likely referring to) didn't get read. Rereading the initial part now, I can see how one might interpolate a disrespectful intention. So far, however, no one except Cullen328 has inferred anything untoward. I can only speculate that Cullen328 read, "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" and mistakenly presumed I was advocating "it" as a substitute for a singular "they" as a disparagement. Whether construed as a bona fide disparagement or as a joke, I hope continued reading here would clear it up: What does one typically ask when there's a knock at the door? What does one usually say after getting tagged in a game of Tag? (I've never heard, "Tag! You're they.") How do we reply to "who's that in the picture?" More cogently, according to the Oxford English entry for "it" - PRONOUN

1. [third person singular] Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. // ‘a room with two beds in it’

1.1 Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex. // ‘she was holding the baby, cradling it and smiling into its face’ (italics not in original)

2. [third person singular] Used to identify a person. // ‘it's me’ (italics not in original)

• I can also understand how that huge wall of text in the "Sorry" thread might dissuade a reader from reading every single item. Accordingly, if anyone read the teal comment (i.e., as just reposted above) and construed it quite literally rather than tongue-in-cheek self-effacement re. my familiarity with the topic as presented in excruciating detail later on in the thread, and without knowing all the linguistic (incl semantics, syntax, lexicology, etymology, and phrase structure) work that consumes me during my time offline as well as online, then shame on me for not including a smiley face and a "LMAO" disclaimer. I guess my reputation as linguistics nerd hasn't preceded me as far as I'd imagined. But please, everyone, don't quiz me on phonology or morphology - esp. Old English. And I'm not really up on that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, I'll be blunt: it was disrespectful and inappropriate. And if it wasn't clear, mine was also a formal warning. If you do something like that again, I will also block you. And might I also suggest you just speak plainly on this matter, without "excruciating detail" that might come across as filibustering...? It probably has little utility, anyway. El_C 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, BilledMammal, I think there could be some justification in reading all references to "it" as a pronoun for persons, in the context of nonbinary people, as potential dogwhistle rhetoric even when - as in this instance - the user is not explicitly referring to any nonbinary person as "it". After all, that is the way dog whistles work, and any sufficiently oblique comment is susceptible to multiple, layered interpretations as to its meaning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking of talk page titles that need to be changed, because they are inaccurate: it is false and misleading for the original comment in this discussion to title this as a "Third-party edit" and refer to it vaguely as "a discussion page". In fact, the edit in question involved Newimpartial retitling a section of their own user talk page to indicate what they, the main reader of the talk page, understood the subtext of the post to be. To me, this seems a lot less problematic than someone coming into a discussion between two other parties on a general-audience page and retitling it to cast aspersions on one party. If a Wikipedia editor receives a user-talk message with what they perceive as a hostile title, but don't want to delete or archive the message itself, are they forced to let that title remain on their talk page? WP:OWNTALK doesn't seem to address this possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein: I agree that "third-party" is inaccurate and false. I admit not proofreading the title and I bear responsibility for that lapse, but I don't agree the title is per se misleading in the context of the WP:DIFFS and LINKS provided for readers to see for themselves what the issue was. It's a moot point in this case since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction, as the one who initiated this ANI. No comment on the WP:OWNTALK consideration you raised except to say I hope others keep in mind that, often, hard cases make bad law. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat at Bernard Kouchner

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

---

The IP editor 68.132.114.72 appears to have made a legal threat at Bernard Kouchner. See the edit summary on Special:Diff/1068189295 - "back off? this sounds like a threat, will be reported to police". PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I was within a hair of bringing IP 68 to ANI, but not for the threat (which I only just saw now) but for IP 68's insistence on repeatedly adding allegations of pedophilia against a living person to the article Bernard Kouchner. I left details and diffs at IP's talk page, here: User talk:68.132.114.72#Unwarranted accusations of pedophilia against a living person, nearly simultaneously with the required ANI notice by PohranicniStraze at IP 68's Talk page. I've reverted IP 68 twice at the article for their pedophilia allegations, and explained at their UTP as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for six months. The pattern of personal abuse, BLP violations, bad sourcing and Jew-tagging goes back several months tgo their first block, which was for one month. The silly legal threats and edit-warring to include obvious BLP violations are just extras. I've deleted the recent edits and summaries, but someone might want to go farther back, since this kind of behavior appears to be a habit..Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:LIVE violations on the Tram 11-article, due to a recent controversy

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

---

First of all, I am not going to name contributers or anything since it is not directly an edit war or a "fight". My point is, there is currently a lot of "mess" going on, on the article about the Croatian rap duo Tram 11 that even led to WP:LIVE violations on that article.

Backround and short explaination what happend: The Croatian rap duo Tram 11 has released a new album, called "Jedan i jedan". The album and especially the song "PSK" recieved negative criticism because it contains provocative and politcally incorrect lyrics and the critics even led to their contract with their label being cancelled. One lyric of the song "PSK" contains the phrase "Jasenovac myth" and it made critics speculate if they are "argumenting that the term is often misused by some Serbian politicians and historians" or if it is "holocaust denial". So far, there are sources that there have been such critics, that is in the article under the "controversy section" and so on...

However, during the last days there was a lot of content added, that violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and (most of all) WP:LIVE. By registred and unregistred users. Examples: first controversial edit, removal of the clean up, accusations of being "far-right" (obv. unsourced), very controversial sourceless claims etc.

Me and some others have tried to fix and clean up the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations, but it is only a question of time when it gets readded, removed, readded and removed etc. again.

We need thrid opinions here and eventually an intervention (e. g. page protection, till the situation cools down)...

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, thank you! Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

TBAN violation

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

---

Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reported user was TBAN from the AA2 area, broadly construed today but has since created an article in violation of his topic ban. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. See ANI discussion, RESTRICT log, TBAN notice, block notice. El_C 15:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

IP 185.113.63.109 is a single purpose troll account

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

---

I mean, just look at their contributions. I don’t think saying more is necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Weird Spammy posts by DarrylRMarsh

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

---

DarrylRMarsh (talk · contribs) keeps posting nonsense about owning countries and demanding money despite a warning.2001:8003:34A3:800:4CFC:D917:23C1:AB40 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they're either a troll or mentally unwell. Either way, they're obviously WP:NOTHERE. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. He promised me and 7.9 billion other people five grand. I’m waiting for my check. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So very NOTHERE. Ravenswing 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be hard to judge which of their last two edits are less tethered to reality. Editors like this should be indefinitely blocked very promptly, as there is zero chance that such people will make positive contributions to a neutral, well referenced encyclopedia. I sincerely hope that this person finds personal peace and effective treatment. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of their edits contain personal information, presumably their own but possibly someone else's. Revdel might be appropriate here? Mlb96 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Crosswiki abuse.

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

---

Hi. Sorry if I get this on the wrong place. It was for informing of this. An user moving another user's user page and talk page due to some problems in another wiki.And moving it to call them fascist on the process.--Lost in subtitles (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good place to report disruption. I moved the pages back and warned the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Blackmanniger/sandbox

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

---

Suggesting the history of User:Blackmanniger/sandbox be deleted, and unsure what kind of action against Blackmanniger (talk · contribs), based on the first edit. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple. WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Solidarityandfreedom's violations of WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:EW and WP:COMPETENCE

Solidarityandfreedom created their account with their first edits attempting to make a Wikipedia page for the chairman of the American Solidarity Party, Draft:Patrick Harris (Party Leader). They then used their account to spam the article for the American Solidarity Party with Twitter links to the American Solidarity Party's "Liberation Caucus". Solidarityandfreedom has been cautioned and reverted by many veteran Wikipedia editors for promotion and the deletion of cited material as can be seen here by Avatar317, here by Rediculizer42, here by Goodone121, and here by Anupam. Solidarityandfreedom's conflict of interest agenda is clear here and their misrepresentation of citations has been noted. They have done the same at related political and religious articles too, with others such as Litawor reversing their edits here and Pbritti reverting their edits here where Solidarityandfreedom is citing primary citations. Solidarityandfreedom's talk page is plastered with warnings from users such as ValtteriLahti12 and others who are tired of wasting their time with this editor who clearly does not have the competence to edit here. Goodone121 has noted that they use misleading edit summaries to blank large amounts of content from articles [284][285]. A topic ban from all articles related to religion and politics is the next best step here, but since these are the only topics that they edit, a site ban could only help him now. TolWol56 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having monitored Solidarityandfreedom's edits from time to time, I agree with TolWol56 insofar as action appears necessary but disagree with a site ban, as the edits are innocuous enough. A topic ban, even a temporary one, seems proportional. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've only seen Solidarityandfreedom's edits on the American Solidarity Party article, but I would classify EVERY edit I saw by that editor as promotional and poorly sourced, with a clear bias of trying to write what they want and then finding "sources" to stick behind their statement (often SELF-sourced to the party itsself - As an easy extreme example, we don't allow white-supremecist groups to characterize their own organizations, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.) Addditionally, Solidarityandfreedom often deleted SOURCED info that doesn't align with what they want the article to say.

The username seemed to me like a redflag for a potential COI on at least the ASP article, and because of their repeated tendentious editing on that article, I support a topic ban for the ASP article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Solidarityandfreedom has started to sock as 72.28.3.68 and is pushing their same POV COI cruft.[286][287] Would anyone oppose a site ban at this point? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Solidarityandfreedom from American Solidarity Party, although the editor is still able to make their case at Talk: American Solidarity Party. I have warned the editor that taking their disruptive style of editing to other parts of the encyclopedia may result in a broader block. Cullen328 (talk)

In response to the IP editing, I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please inform me if the disruption resumes, and I will semi-protect for a longer period. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[288][289] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, 1990'sguy, I have already semi-protected the article. I am not going to completely block the editor unless they continue their disruption after my page block. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Without comment on the overall behavior, noting that in consultation with Cullen I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solidarityandfreedom with a finding that they are likely not the same person as the IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban for Solidarityandfreedom on politics and religion articles, broadly construed

• Support: This editor is only here to promote their COI views and they have dug a hole for themselves by not taking warnings seriously. Instead, they are still edit warring to push their POV across a range of articles. After this ANI discussion was made, Solidarityandfreedom has resorted to socking under 72.28.3.68.[290][291] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• (other comment) In my opinion there doesn’t necessarily need to be an entire ban, however I would support a block on the Girolamo Savonarola article as he constantly adds information that contradicts the sources that were already used, seemingly to go against the common claim that he was a proto-Protestant (like Philip Schaff and even Britannica 1911 mentioned). ValtteriLahti12 (talk)
• Support topic ban per my original post and the proposal. TolWol56 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• (other comment) Why would you do this Valt you know me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidarityandfreedom (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Your edits in the Savonarola article were not sourced., though I do not support an entire ban. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or even a NOTHERE block per proposal. From the twitter link-spamming to religious disruption and promotion, I'm leaning more into a total block, but my judgment could be wrong. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Supposed "legal issues"

• Plintron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 183.83.211.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.195.60.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.4.205.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.212.218.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These 4 IPs have/had removed the same section – first edit from last November, although the others were made within the last week – claiming it to be defamatory or "under arbitration and confidential by law". The first IP also claimed that the section was added by "the party in dispute with Plintron, Surf Telecom". I don't know who is in the right here. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The section concerned is badly sourced, or unsourced entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A look at the deletion log shows at least half a dozen deletion on CSD grounds for G11, A7, and G12 issues. I've nominated for deletion so we'll see what happens when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plintron closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I chopped bits of the promotional content, but what is left does seem like the output of a PR department. The IPs were right to remove that legal blather though. Zaathras (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Plintrongroup

Not unsurprisingly, a new account cropped up when the article got moved to afd. Right at this exact moment they haven't done anything nefarious or malevolent enough to justify admin action, however that username needs monitoring. I go back to work starting tonight, so in 24 hours if its still as it is someone needs to step in take action on username violation grounds. While not an issue yet, they are starting to circle the NLT drain, and that will need to be watched as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UAA. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 10:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Plintrongroup blocked per WP:CORPNAME Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats by an IP

Special:Contributions/63.135.184.14 Very bizarre IP user has made a weird as heck legal threat in an edit summary after trying to remove all equals symbols, square brackets and pipes from an article, since, as I understand, they think their ex-partner put them there to track them and abuse their kids (or something along those lines). Can someone just block them for their own dignity until they get whatever is in their system out? That really seems to be the only explanation here, besides trolling. Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

False accusations

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

---

Pri2000 is accusing and threatening me because I filed Sockpuppet investigation on her. She is personally attacking me [292], [293]. Princepratap1234 (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

For desktop users: [294], [295] Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've solid reason to file sockpuppetry against hi. He used to harass me through different IPs. And falsely booked me under Sockpuppetry just because an unknown new user commented somewhat similar to me on Paras Kalnawat's deletion discussion page. I created that user's talk page because I often creates talk pages of new editors. You can see my whole editing history from my day 1 that is 24 June 2021 to till now. Even I warned some users who exactly copied text from my user page. I'm totally against sockpuppetry. But you can see the whole similarities in the behaviour pattern of the accused in the link to sockpuppetry investigation below. How he harrassed me exactly in the same manner by his original account also and IPs also that it lead my talk page to be semi-protected for 2 times. [296]. Administrators can see whole prooves there which I provided through my talk page editing history. Administrators are free to scroll my whole editing history. I doesn't know who that Gari is. Pri2000 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

She just keep harrasing me because i don't let her do fan activities on Wikipedia.Princepratap1234 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's him who keeps harassing me since last 2 months. Sometimes by own account sometimes by IPs. Administrators should look that it was me who filed case against Krishika Sahni the fangirl. If I've been a fangirl then I would have done many unconstructive edits. I removed unnotable roles from the actor's wikipedia. And Administrators should also look at my talk page editing history and the case of accused. I provided complete proofs against him. Which are completely exactly same. From the way of starting a conversation to the language used. Everything is exact copy of each other. I doesn't who that user is. Who commented in a similar way. What I just know is I created talk pages of several new editors. So did I today for no reason. I had no idea that it can file sockpuppetry case against me. But Administrators please kindly look at my evidences also at his booked case.Pri2000 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the extent of the situation, but the two diffs provided do not look like attacks. BeŻet (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

2600:1700:8EA2:200:0:0:0:0/64

2600:1700:8EA2:200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been soapboxing, edit-warring and accusing others of harassment, "libel and slander", censorship and bias on Talk:The Gateway Pundit since 22 January. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Range blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban yet again

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

---

Johnpacklambert is topic banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. This topic ban was agreed as a condition for lifting an indef block. You may recall his topic ban violations reported here in early December, or his topic ban violations reported here in late December].

Johnpacklambert edited Diana Reader Harris. He added a category. It is difficult to understand how he could have added this category without reading the article to establish that such a category applied. The second sentence of the two sentence lead says She was a keen advocate of women's ordination in the Church of England. It is difficult to understand how Johnpacklambert missed that Reader Harris was the first woman president of the Church Missionary Society. It is difficult to understand how he missed an entire paragraph about her activities in the Church of England, including preaching and acting as a lay canon. Even if he were only concentrating on categories, it is difficult to understand how he missed Category:English Anglicans, which should have been a big, red, flashing warning sign not to edit this particular article. The article riddled with references to her church activities.

Johnpacklambert is either magically able to edit articles without reading them, completely incompetent, or knowingly violating his topic ban. Since this is far from his first violation, the answer seems obvious. Reasonable Funk (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Block Sock/Ignore And don't keep open for 3 days. If no other editor is noticing than it's a stretch to say these edits are disruptive and it's time to stop allowing this sock to consume our most valuable resource, time.Slywriter (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

She was a keen advocate of women's ordination in the Church of England is not a "religious figure." She was at various times a member of Dorset Education Committee, the Independent Television Authority, the councils of the National Youth Orchestra and the Outward Bound Trust, the Church Missionary Society, where as its first woman president she brought it to espouse the 1980 Brandt Report on bridging the North-South divide, and Christian Aid, where she was also chairman in 1978–1983. She joined the council of the Royal Society of Arts in 1975 and chaired it in 1979–1981. is not a religious figure. Being religious and involved in some religious groups does not make the article focused on a religious figure, nor were the edits related to anything religion related. You're stretching further and further each time you make a new sock to report these "violations." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? How is someone so involved in the Church not a religious figure? The topic ban is from religion or religious figures broadly construed. Would editing an article about a Serbian Orthodox priest count, or is that too much of a stretch, too? Reasonable Funk (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit warring user

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

---

Could someone please check this report: [297] This user continues edit warring, despite multiple warnings, and has made already 6 rvs on a single page. Grandmaster 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Indian constituency pages

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

---

There is a range of IPs which are making disruptive edits on Indian constituency pages. This person/group changes the party of constituency winners to BJP on many of these pages. Some of the IPs involved: 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. The editor moves on to a different IP before the 4 warning levels of vandalism can be posted on their talk page. Is this the right place to request a check for other similar IPs, and a range-block? Pinging @Dhruv edits: since he discovered most of these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The range 2402:8100:2039:0:0:0:0:0/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to cover most of this - contribs have an exclusive focus on Indian constituency/politician pages; a very large percentage appear vandal-like and have been reverted. The rest of the IPs have only <10 edits each (

• 122.161.53.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4050:2DC7:B80B:F90F:0:0:0/56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2402:3A80:1BEE:5014:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4050:2ECA:9FFA:DDE7:0:0:0/56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

) hemantha (brief) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Storm598

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

---

It's virtually impossible for one person to keep up with the massive number of edits to political articles made by this editor, but in the past their editing in the area of American politics has garnered them a ban from that subject area. As I look at the large number of articles they have touched recently, I am very concerned that this editor's idiosyncratic views may be corrupting those articles in the same way they hurt AmPol articles. They've shown in the past that they're not nearly as knowledgeable about politics and political theory as they believe themselves to be (they recently declared on their talk page that they are an "expert on European politics", but they've said in the past that their basic viewpoints comes from reading a Korean political blog), and they like to label things and spread the label around, as they did with their recent creation of Template:Liberal conservatism.

Folks who have the time might want to look into Storm598's editing to see if a ban on editing all articles about politics of any sort might be in order, if not a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is the most recent noticeboard discussion concerning Storm598 that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never edited Wikipedia through South Korean blogs. You keep distorting my remarks, but in the California Democratic Party's Talk session, I said I don't think the political position of the CDP is "Centre to Centre-left". I mentioned DPK, a liberal party generally considered "Centre to Centre-left" in the debate. In South Korea, DPK is judged to have a social conservative character, but I just told you the popular view of South Koreans that the U.S. Democratic Party often sees it as social democracy, and I didn't use it as a basis. And it's a Korean wiki, not a blog. I was saying that CDP is a clear "Centre-left" in the context of American politics and never a "Centrist". It also mentioned South Koreans' perception of the political position of the Democratic Party of the United States as a rebuttal to the fact that the Democratic Party of the United States is "Centre to Centre-left" in international political standards. Of course, I have never edited Wikipedia based on Namuwiki.--Storm598 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I mentioned Namuwiki only once in the Talk of the California Democratic Party article, I think it's an excessive leap to claim that I'm being influenced by Korean blogs when editing articles on European politics. I'm not a user of Namuwiki, and I'm not very interested in Namuwiki. --Storm598 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Beyond My Ken may not agree with the existence of a template called Liberal Conservatism. But this is a term that is used very often in European politics, and I really don't know European politics. In Europe, the term liberal is used in a completely different context from the United States. And Liberal conservatism is one of the main ideologies of conservative politics in Europe. I think that's too much if you say I need a measure to ban the editing of all political articles. Obviously, the template consists of topics related to general liberal conservatism. --Storm598 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Liberal conservatism is a term often used in European conservative politics. In particular, it is a key ideology in European mainstream centre-right conservative politics. And have I ever edited to the level of being banned in European political Articles? --Storm598 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban against editing articles about politics worldwide, broadly construed. This editor is obsessed (colloquially) with adding their own highly idiosyncratic South Korean interpretations of how to describe the political ideologies of various political parties in various countries. In theory, every one of this editor's edits should be fact checked by another editor who is familiar with the literature about the political party in question. In practice, that is simply not possible. A broad topic ban is needed to prevent further disruption in this topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

When editing European politics, I didn't edit it by referring to the South Korean wiki or site. Let me refute all the edits that BMK has returned.--Storm598 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Conservative liberalism# : Conservative liberalism and right-liberalism are often used synonyms. However, in some regions, such as Germany, right-liberalism also means national liberalism. Please refer to the German Wikipedia. #--Storm598 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Ordoliberalism# I admit that this article is controversial. Ordoliberalism is the core of the social market economy. But in German political standards, it is economic liberalism. The problem is that as you can see from the history of the article, many editors have made false edits that regard "ordoliberalism" as part of "social liberalism" because it is related to the social market economy. So I found data that classified Ordoliberalism as conservative liberalism and classified the article as conservative liberalism. Ordoliberalism is clearly related to Germany's center-right Christian democracy or liberal conservative political forces.--Storm598 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Christian democracy# : In European and Latin American politics, Christian democracy is usually a centrist or center-right ideology. Christian democracy usually appears much more in the form of right than left. For example, Gremialismo is also a clear Christian democratic ideology, which has an economic liberal nature. Especially in the Spanish Wikipedia, Gremialismo clearly states that it is an extreme right-wing (extrema derecha) ideology. # --Storm598 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Berlusconism# Berlusconism is a centre-right liberal and liberal-conservative ideology. Liberalism here is, of course, not that liberalism in the United States, but (classical) liberalism in Europe. Of course, Berlusconi has a right-wing populist personality, which is often compared to Trump, but that doesn't mean his political tendencies are the same as those of far-right politicians like Trump. Berlusconi has said a lot of rude things, but he has rarely taken a far-right view on internal affairs, and is in solidarity with the centre-right European People's Party.--Storm598 (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason why I should be banned from all political articles? --Storm598 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• I admit that I made a wrong edit in an article related to American politics. However, I think the measure to ban editing in all political articles is clearly excessive.--Storm598 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's a problem to create a Template:Liberal conservatism arbitrarily, I won't create a new template before I go through enough consultation with other users before I create the template in the future.

When I edited European politics, I referred to other language versions of Wikipedia a lot. Also, I have been exposed to data related to European politics for nearly a decade. Even if very few related edits were inappropriate, I think most of them were clearly fact-based productive contributions.

Nevertheless, if my editing is unsatisfactory, I will refrain from editing bold articles when editing political articles other than South Korean politics in the future and contribute much less to Wikipedia than before. Obviously, I think the ban on all politics is harsh. --Storm598 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And I think his opinion may not be objective because there have been several conflicts with Beyond My Ken in Wikipedia. I have previously questioned BMK's editing on the Administrators bulletin board by inappropriately editing articles related to some countries.--Storm598 (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There may be people who are suspicious of my editing besides BMK because of the wrong editing I showed you in an article related to American politics. However, it is clearly excessive that I should be banned from all political articles because of the bold editing of European political articles. I have knowledge of European politics. Really.--Storm598 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rather, I think there are some productive edits in European political articles, including Ordoliberalism articles, such as appropriately correcting the wrong edits of some users. #, #. The reason why I classified Ordoliberalism as conservative liberalism was to prevent this misunderstanding. I think it's really too much for me to ban the editing of all political articles, including European politics.--Storm598 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just to state the obvious, Storm598 didn't receive a ban from American Politics because of "wrong editing I showed you in an article related to American politics", they got it because of a continuing pattern of disruptive edits in multiple articles on American politics. The discussion in which this community ban was placed can be found here. Note that the closer commented that there was also "some support for banning from the topic of all politics", so the problem of their editing in political articles in general is an issue which has come up before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were user who expressed the view that all political articles needed a topic van when I made disruptive edits in American political articles. But you haven't been able to provide an accurate basis for what wrong editing I made in a recent European political article. You are arguing that all political editing should be banned just because my editing is suspicious. I can provide much more evidence in detail that you have made disruptive edits in some articles related to politics in Europe and Asia. --Storm598 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • No, I am making a different argument. I am saying that you make a lot of edits to political articles, so I haven't been able to check them all, but that those recent ones I have checked have been almost uniformly wrong, unsourced, and based on your opinions and not on generally accepted ideas about political theory. I have undone edits of this type, but I don't have the energy or the time to examine all of your many other edits, so I am asking other editors to take a look at them to determine if -- as I suspect -- they are equally as bad, unsourced, and ungrounded in fact. If they are, then there is a case for a topic ban from politics in general or, since those are pretty much the only edits you make, and you have not shown any respect in your editing for Wikipedia requirements such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, a ban from editing the site on any topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That's just your view. You have reviewed a total of 4 articles today. I fully explained in those four articles that my editing was not wrong. On the other hand, you have made edits that violate WP:V and WP:NPOV in articles related to political parties in various countries, including India, Russia, UK, South Korea, etc.--Storm598 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Of course it's my view, whose view would you expect me to have? That's why I'm asking for other editors to examine your editing. I have wasted many hours of my life dealing with your disruptive editing and your WP:BLUDGEONing of discussions. I have no intention of wasting any more than is necessary this time around. I will just say, in short, that your "explanations" are, in and of themselves, prima facie examples of why your editing is disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Don't waste your time, just manage your life and save time. After all, you can't provide any evidence why my editing is a problem. It's just your very, very subjective judgment that it's likely to be.--Storm598 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            • Shall we talk again about the Indian National Congress article, Conservative Party article, Liberal Party article, Fatah article, various political party articles in South Korea, Soviet Communist Party articles, and numerous editorials that violate and even destroy NPOV and V? Because American politics is exceptional, you are an expert only in American political articles. In particular, it was very annoying that you forced the Liberal Party to mark its political position as "Centre" without considering the political situation of the time, or to describe the Conservative Party as classical liberalism. Surely you don't know much more European politics than I do. So you don't have the capacity to talk about the ban on European politics. Before criticizing others, first look back on the devastating editing you did in articles on European and Asian politics.--Storm598 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
              • I apologize for the cancellation line above. I confused you with B.M.L. Peters. I'm sorry about this part. However, my position remains unchanged that my discussion on European political bans is unfair.--Storm598 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have made comments in the previous two discussions, which I have not yet re-evaluated. However, I note that my previous mentions of edit summaries were not taken to heart. I would explicitly advise Storm598, whatever the outcome of this discussion, to greatly increase their use of edit summaries. This is general good practice, but feels specifically important for these sort of political edits, especially those in areas such as the template and category space where sources are not usually used. CMD (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your advice. In the future, we will use more editing summaries. --Storm598 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, one diff that I think sums up the problem is Special:Diff/1068249567. They do not understand WP:BLUE and assume their own personal knowledge is sufficient to dispense with proper sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not what I mean. I can add liberal conservatism to all articles related to everyone listed in the template. However, many of the people written in the template have already been mentioned a long time ago in liberal conservatism articles.--Storm598 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have anxiety symptoms. I'm also in a bad situation personally. I don't think I've made a very problematic edit in an article related to European politics, but I don't think I should edit Wikipedia. This is not about whether I have editing skills or not. I'm just saying I won't because I'm in pain.

I don't know when I'll come back, but I won't come back this year. I've broken my promise before, so you may not believe it, but I'm going to log out from now on. If we talk here now, I think I'll want to edit Wikipedia again. (I'm aiming not to return to Wikipedia for the rest of my life, but I won't say I won't return because I might not be able to keep this later.)

I really had a terrible childhood, and I'm still in a terrible situation, have various traumas, and feel severe fear of being criticized or unpredictable by many people. But if I don't quit now, I'll want to edit Wikipedia again. So I'm going to log out now.

However, it is revealed that the atmosphere of Wikipedia has changed a lot. Long before I started working with this account, it didn't cause much trouble when I was working with another account, but other users didn't doubt or treat new users' editing like this. I was really happy when I edited Wikipedia three years ago with another account. But now I'm not happy at all and I'm in complete pain.

You may come back later, but for at least a few years, you don't edit Wikipedia itself and try not to log in.

I'll log out. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Insisting on false information on Spanish-language television blocks

Angel Arreguin Hernandez is insisting on keeping the "Moved to" section on Spanish language television blocks Planeta U and Toonturama, despite it containing information such as the acquired programming such as Dora and Diego "moving" to outlets like Pluto TV, or Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Handy Manny to Disney outlets, when such are more their homes than these Spanish blocks they're being leased out to, and aren't actually moving. I was previously threatened with a block just for removing it even though they know it's false information.--CreecregofLife (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well actually, bot saying I didn't do it nothing. Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What bot?--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Mkibona

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

---

An article in the WP:SIGNPOST at [298] recently made me aware of some atrocious behaviour by Mkibona. The user in question operated a Wiki Education coursecalled "Black Women and Popular Culture". [299] The course was designed to create Wikipedia articles on organizations and figures that were seen as related to Black Women. Most of the articles created were speedy deleted and were of low quality. However, Black Women Radicals was brought to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Women Radicals. This is where the behavioural issues began.
Mkibona assigned multiple students to edit this article and promote it, as can be seen as the Wiki Ed page for the course.[300] This sort of offsite coordination to write a promotional article on an organization is meatpuppetry and is wrong on its own. Then, when the article was nominated for deletion, Mkibona went offsite and began to canvass (an Arb has weighed in on this publicly so I'll assume it's OK to link this here). [301] This was "I don’t know where the Black (& allies) nerds are, but I really need support in editing & saving" and then a link to the article in question. Likewise for Ratchet Feminism, which kept being redirected. This is canvassing, full stop. However, it gets worse. The editor (Wizzito) who nominated the article says they were subject to offwiki harassment after they responded to the twitter thread. [302]. While the harassment itself was not Mkibona's fault, Mkibona defended the harassment in a response to this user onwiki and victim-blamed the user for getting involved in the Twitter thread. [303] [304] This is unacceptable to see, and Mkibona has obviously not learned the lesson that it is inappropriate to go offsite and ask for people to get involved.
The reason why I am starting this ANI thread is that it is clear that the existing processes have failed to address this issue. The official response from Wiki Education has refused to acknowledge Mkibona's actions as canvassing, telling editors to "Please appreciate that this is a common behavior among the subject matter expert academics we work with." [305] The rest of the post spent its time defending Mkibona and actually apologized to her. Here's the thing. I do not care if this is "common behavior", it's canvassing and is unacceptable. We need to make this clear to this editor as a community if Wiki Ed is unable to. Additionally, the last time we had an issue with an editor abusing their position as a Wiki Ed coordinator the discussion was punted to WP:AN by the arbitration committee and this resulted in a full c-ban. [306] So this is an appropriate matter for us to discuss.

Proposal

As a response to the above conduct, I would like to propose a full community site ban for a period of 3 months on Mkibona. Firstly, canvassing is unacceptable and we cannot have a person who believes it is OK in a position where they are coordinating offwiki with groups of editors to edit articles. Secondly, harassment is unacceptable. While Mkibona has not done any of the harassment themselves, it is still not OK to defend offwiki harassment or blame it on the victim for provoking it. I am shocked and appalled that the discussion at the Education Noticeboard has not resulted in any action and that is why I started this thread. I believe 3 months is an appropriate period of time for the severity of the issues and the total lack of understanding by this person of what they did wrong. A warning is insufficient as they have made it abundantly clear that our warnings are unheeded. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is just about 234 shades of misguided and does nothing but pour oil on the fire when we should be de-escalating and finding common ground. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative, and there is no indication such canvassing will happen again. If canvassing occurs again, sure, but proposing a ban because you read a Signpost article is not an adequate reaction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Headbomb: I read the actual dispute and the thread. I included the bit about the Signpost because that's where I directly learned about the issue. But I have been involved with Wiki Ed on the WP:Education noticeboard before and I've seen quite a lot of problematic articles by Wiki Ed participants. On that note, I do not care about finding common ground. That's a WP:False balance. There can be no common ground with people that defend harassment, victim-blame, and canvass. There is no compromise that victim-blaming someone who received harassment is sometimes OK, and there is no compromise that canvassing to save articles from deletion is sometimes OK. I don't believe we should "de-escalate" and sweep things under the rug while pretending there is nothing wrong. There is something wrong and it's necessary that we deal with it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  And also, blocks are meant to be preventative. Bans and other community sanctions are not. But on that note, this is preventative. If we do not sanction this editor here and we let them off with a warning as was done at that notice board, they have made it very clear that in the future they will disregard our policy. But since this may not end up going forward, what do you think of an indefinite t-ban of some sort? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose a proposal of a three month siteban? Bans and blocks are supposed to prevent disruption. Mkibona has not edited in a month and I don't see evidence that such a block would prevent any disruption. The proper time for this proposal was a month ago; not now. We also don't need to make an example of her or whatever -- she made a mistake. And this is coming from someone who received some harassment on Twitter myself for being involved in this. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Headbomb. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Headbomb and Elli. I understand what Mkibona was trying to do (increase representation on Wikipedia), and this situation is the fault of the Black Women Radicals organization (who quote-retweeted Mkibona's tweet and sent their followers). wizzito | say hello! 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The issue seems to be with the behavior of the Black Women Radicals organization, not the class. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Wizzito and Headbomb. Not helpful. The only people who deserve a ban here aren't actually Wikipedians. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SNOW close is probably in order here at this point, so maybe archive? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Regular disruptive editing from PhilLiberty

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

---

PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 4 times in the past for edit warring and disruptive editing. They still continue disruptive editing today. If you look at their contributions, nearly all of them have been reverted by editors.

Most recently, they have been making drastic changes to articles related to anarchism, and then edit warring when those changes were reverted by editors, asking PhilLiberty to discuss those changes on the Talk page before making them, pointing at WP:BRD.

Those drastic changes included sticking a large diagram below the lead on several articles, which has been deleted from Commons for copyright violations but now reuploaded here, again without a license or copyright information, apart from a vague "Hogeye Bill use at will" (the image is taken from here). I have outlined numerous factually incorrect and controversial things regarding the diagram on the talk page. Other changes involve completely inverting statements, removing any statements they don't like or agree with adding statements without any sources, and removing existing sources. All of PhilLIberty's changes seem to be ideologically driven, with no consideration for sources and ignoring consensus.

Some of the articles affected:

• Anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anarchist schools of thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Free-market anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Individualist anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Progressivism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am frankly tired of fixing and reverting the disruptive editing this user is performing. They don't seem to understand that all changes need adequate sourcing, nor do they seem to want to cooperate with other editors by discussing those bold changes. I would really appreciate some sort of intervention here. BeŻet (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at some of the recent history and what I see includes accusing other editors who revert them of vandalism, while restoring their edits against consensus (reverts are sometimes by other editors than BeZet). Also text alterations without updating the sources, resulting in material that sometimes deviate from them. An example is here with the vandalism edit summary and the sources having no mention of "free market". Occasionally I see an attempt to discuss at article talk pages but not systematically. I'm not sure about the merits of the promoted diagram, I've not studied anarchism in a while and political science is not my field. As for its copyright status, it's ambigious, the comment has an apparent author name and "license" assertion: "Hogeye Bill use at will" but no link to the original source. "Use at will" may perhaps mean in the public domain but if so, that too is not ideal (WP:PD). —PaleoNeonate – 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The diagram is complete WP:SYNTH in that it was created by the user himself (according to him). ANd as someone who has studied anarchism heavily, it is a load of tripe. The user is a blatant POV pusher trying to push a fringe ideology. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:7A (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If so, does this mean that Phil is also Bill? If so, was there a successful appeal by Special:Contributions/Hogeye? Interesting links:

• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive2#Spencer Heath
• File:AnarchismTree05.jpg
• File:AnarchismTree10.jpg
• File:Anarchism-Tree.jpg
• File:AnarchismTree07.jpg
• File:IndAnarchismTree.jpg
• This search includes ANI, SPI cases etc.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive75#User:Hogeye
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hogeye
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive74#User:Hogeye, Talk:Anarchism, and Template:AnarchismDildo
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/mises.org (permalink) included File:Ideomap-v21.gif
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#User:216.55.185.224 is a block-evading sock puppet of User:Hogeye shows interaction at individualist anarchism
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 5#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (October 2006)
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hogeye Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hogeye

Maybe it's time to file Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye... —PaleoNeonate – 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding: here they are arguing in support of the diagram's conclusions but without providing sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Was this apparent WP:POVFORK really first introduced here? Some edit warring to restore it happened when 5 other editors were restoring the redirect. But this was in 2019 and there were some blocks that year already. —PaleoNeonate – 14:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If Phil is Hogeye, wouldn't that be against sockpuppet rules? It also means that he was blocked over a dozen of times then before. BeŻet (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether a WP:TBAN would be appropriate here? BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just saw they'd made a bunch of disruptive edits and reverted them. What caught my eye was the placing of an apparently self-created image directly in the middle of a lede, then noticed they have also been changing the wording in articles, even removing sourced information, to the point that it appears to be POV pushing. This seems to be just another day in a week-long cycle of attempting to push these kinds of changes to the above-mentioned articles. And going through their user talk page, this seems to be incredibly persistent behavior, with 3RR violations and disruption warnings stretching back 15 years. I certainly think a TBAN is appropriate, at minimum, but I have to wonder if they won't simply take such behavior to other sections of Wikipedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

46.177.143.114

Can someone please revoke the ip's talk page access ? The ip address is 46.177.143.114.

F.Y.I there is ongoing Vandalism by the ip (46.177.143.114) on the talk page of the ip. Chip3004 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, not vandalism. They're just blanking; pay it no attention and it won't bother you. User:Binksternet, just leave it be. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mralrayz999

• Mralrayz999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bullshit propaganda sources are taken into account. 300k? I fuck your mom 300 times what a bullshit. I will fuck your pro persian propaganda in english wikipedia you miserable loser iranians and fricking bullshit! whoever is in charge in here? some butthurt greeks? if you are gonna define history of the Oghuz turks of ottoman dynasty with some unreliable propaganda sources i will raid every single page of wikipedia fricking low IQ editors and your CEO wonder why Turkey bans Wikipedia, with such editors, who needs more bullshit. FDW777 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Charming. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Probably ought to be revdel'd as well. Ravenswing 13:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've revision deleted the most egregious edit summaries as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

CIVIL issues at AFD

Jkaharper (talk · contribs) recently posted a !vote at AFD that briefly touched upon the content of the discussion but was primarily concerned with discussing the behaviours of myself and Johnpacklambert in a manner that violates WP:PA, with the most problematic example being in this fragment: This is getting quite boring now. A single user obsessed with deleting bios of noted individuals, flanked by his sidekick. Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users.

As a single example, I didn't initially intend to bring this here, but I believe their unusual understanding of WP:PA, where they rely on the Wiktionary definition rather than policy means that this issue needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the editor takes issue with the required notification being placed on their talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- Funny thing about AfD culture, isn't it. If someone says "User:Example is an obsessive asshat" that would be a personal attack. But if they say "Keep- nominator is an obsessive asshat" that's all fine and dandy. Reyk _YO! 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hi @BilledMammal:, there seems to be a contradiction in what you've written above. You say "the most problematic example being" and then "As a single example", so which is it? Either there are multiple examples or one. Also, can you please quote me the section of WP:PA you feel I have violated. As I previously said, I do not feel I have infringed upon your character, lifestyle etc. nor did I dismiss any of the comments you made on the AfD – I addressed them. IMO, this doesn't constitute a personal attack. Users must be free to criticise general conduct and patterns of behaviour especially if they feel it's non-constructive. Even if my choice phrasing was rather strong, I do not personally believe I crossed a line. I said that we should agree to disagree. My intent was not to offend, therefore I cannot offer you an apology. Thank you --Jkaharper (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A single post, with multiple examples within it, of which the quoted is the most problematic. I will leave the rest of your comment for other editors to consider, as I don't believe a back-and-forth between us here will be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well it's quite a serious point actually, and I'd prefer you answered it as well. You've quoted WP:PA so I assume you've read it and believe I violated it. I'm asking you to specify which section/paragraph/sentence fits your claim. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm not a platypus, but I'll answer anyway. I think Comment on content, not on the contributor. fits the bill. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • So we should never make statements about the general conduct and/or constructive nature of a user's input? Hmmm... --Jkaharper (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If you don't see the difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks, and how your language was a PA, then I'm going to bow out. Probably not going to have any productive discussion starting that far apart. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• What does seem clear to me @BilledMammal:, is that even if you consider this a "personal attack" you've ignored two of the specific directions under section 4 on appropriate response – isolated incidents come under Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks and only if something can be deemed "particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults)" should you raise it here. --Jkaharper (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think the second part of the quoted statement is pretty dickish (Jkaharper, that's playing the ball, not the man--right?), but as far as personal attacks go, meh, I don't think it's ANI-worthy. I don't quite see why BilledMammal wasn't happy with just leaving a warning, but had to get a pound of flesh at ANI. Editors, you're not always going to get it. Leave a templated warning, second or third level, for personal attacks/harassment. Do it again if it happens again, and/or report at AIV. Much simpler, much less self-incriminating--in this case, with less attention drawn to what really amounts to badgering at the AfD. And Jkaharper, you can always try to say "sorry, I'll do better next time", and walk away with your reputation intact. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: did you intend to say AIV? I thought that was only for extremely blatant ongoing cases of vandalism or spam. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • User:AlexEng, the templated warnings for personal attacks are in the same pull-down menu as those for vandalism, and as far as I'm concerned, personal attacks, harassment, hounding, etc. all fall under the broader definition of vandalism, "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So if someone were to warn an editor a few times for that and then report them to that board, and I were to see it, I would take it seriously and consider blocking, yes. I know it's not the most common thing to do, and much later on in Wikipedia:Vandalism it says "harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently", but I think admins should consider that not all editors know exactly all parts of the policy and take reports as they come. "Wrong board" should not be the easy way out, as a kind of dismissal. Consider also that if an editor gets a level-3 warning for a PA, and then a level-4 warning for more straight-up vandalism--and there's a bit of a borderline anyway: "While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article..." Consider how many ANI posts are actually "simple" cases of vandalism--I'd be a lazy admin if I said "that's not for here" and do nothing about the situation. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The only issue I see with that is there's probably a 50% chance of hitting a PA feedback loop. Editor A makes what Editor B considers a personal attack. Editor B templates Editor A with the PA template. Editor A responds to that template poorly. Editor B templates again for that response. Then it goes to AIV and you get "Well, is it really that bad? I've seen worse." Going the template to AIV route would have to be some pretty clear cut personal attacks, especially for an established editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't see a lot of those loops, but if that happens then ANI is the next step, yes. I just think that this was never really ANI material. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point, Drmies. When I posted the above question, I thought you had mad a typo in writing AIV instead of ANI, but now that I see your reasoning, I understand what you meant. Thanks for clarifying! AlexEng^(TALK) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • User:AlexEng it's a very valid question and I'm glad you asked it--you certainly had a point and I realize (now) that I'm kind of molding various aspects of WP:Vandalism. Another grey area, BTW, is "disruptive editing"--they're all overlapping terms in some ways. You gave me cause to look over that entire page and that was useful--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The comments are not so extreme that I would have brought this to ANI, unless the user was not otherwise receptive to discussion. That being said, Jkaharper, the wikilawyering in this thread is not helping. ANI is an appropriate place to discuss user conduct; an AfD !vote is not. If you have some concrete problem with a user's behavior, you could address it with them personally in a civil manner, on their talk page. If the problem is serious, you can seek dispute resolution options and community review at ANI. In any case, your analysis of a user's motivations and edit history do not belong at an AfD page. Without demanding quotations from policy and without picking apart individual sentences to misconstrue meaning, can you at least agree that the above {{tq}}ed quote is not particularly civil? If you can't, then we may actually have an issue that merits community review. Otherwise, I suggest dropping the stick and walking away from this thread. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I felt the same way and hadn't originally planned to bring this to WP:ANI, except that when I attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page they insisted on using the definition of "personal attack" from Wiktionary to determine whether their comments were appropriate, rather than WP:PA, and declined to continue the conversation. Given this unusual definition of PA I felt it was likely that issues would continue, and decided it was better to correct the issue now, while it is sufficient to correct their misunderstanding rather than anything more serious - although if there are more appropriate forums for such a correction, I would appreciate being pointed towards them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Hi @AlexEng:, I wanted this conversation to end about 4 hours ago frankly. I told the respective user that we should agree to disagree and that I no longer wanted to speak about it, so where their new charge of they “thought issues would continue” comes from, I’m not particularly sure. I do not intend to interact with said user again. Whilst I do not take back anything I said, I can see how the particular wording/phrasing comes off a bit strong, and how some can be sensitive to such language. In future, I will be more wary of this so as not to appear “dickish”, as User:Drmies poetically put it. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes to long-established end matter organization

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

---

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is on one of his OCD kicks again, changing the long-standing organization of the end matter in multiple articles. It is my understanding that what the regular editors of the article have accepted as consensus should not be arbitrarily changed. BYK seems to be overly concerned with the length of the TOC, adding faux headings at the expense of removing edit links from the headings in the references section, which I use regularly. His changes are not welcome at Asheville, North Carolina, and my understanding is that going on a campaign to make multiple articles conform to one's own style preferences is discouraged. Once he targets an article, he keeps coming back and reverting regular editors of the article who restore the longstanding version. I suggest he take a wikibreak. Skyerise (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• This won't go well.

• ..."is on one of his OCD kicks" again? That's nice.
• ..."he keeps coming back and reverting regular editors of the article who restore the longstanding version." Since BMK first edited the article on 18 January, the only person to have edited it (apart from one IP), is Skyerise, and BMK has "come back" after his first edits ... precisely once.
• ..."His changes are not welcome at Asheville, North Carolina" = "I don't like his changes".

• This is a content dispute. Why is it here? Black Kite (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a long-standing behavior problem on the part of this editor which has been going on for years. He's like a dog with a bone - I haven't seen him do this for some years, or he has stayed away from me. I intend to nip this behavior restarting in the bud. This isn't about "content" - it's about forcing one's preferred referencing style onto articles and falls under WP:CITEVAR aka WP:WHENINROME. I don't have any problem with his actual content changes to the text of the article, only with his style changes that he applies to every article he touches, not just the end matter, but oversizing images and other unnecessary style changes. He's got no consensus for these changes, doesn't even ask on the talk page. Just comes in and takes ownership. It is unwanted and undesirable. In the past he has edit warred over it, and it looks like he intends to again "These sections do not need to be hierarchical, they merely take up space in the TOC. Please do not alter again". That's not up to him, he doesn't get to lay down the law... Skyerise (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And nor do you. Which is why it's a content dispute. Meanwhile, "I intend to nip this behavior restarting in the bud" is spectacularly unhelpful. And unless I am missing something, WP:CITEVAR deals with the format of citations themselves, not the organisation of references. Black Kite (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The organization of the end matter is also protected from arbitrary changes, there are multiple styles and ways of doing it as described in MOS:NOTES. Where there is more than one way to do things, the status quo should be maintained unless one first gets consensus on the talk page. He was reverted, and he didn't then take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. WP:CITE states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." (emphasis added). The attached note is broader, and says "The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: 'Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.'" I think that's pretty clear. Skyerise (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, organisation of content is not a stylistic change. But anyway, if you can list the "multiple articles" where BMK has recently "(kept) coming back and reverting regular editors of the article who restore the longstanding version" it'd be a lot easier for others to assess. Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Organization of end matter is indeed included within style, rather than content. I accidentally linked WP:NOTES instead of MOS:NOTES. Things covered by the Manual of Style are style issues, not content issues. It clearly states that there are multiple options for both heading titles and heading organization or nesting. These are therefore unmandated variations or options for styling the end matter and are thus covered by the arbitration ruling. Skyerise (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Skyerise wrote on my talk page "The organization of the end matter is up to the regular editors of the article." [307] That appears to mean that Skyerise believes that these so-called "regular editors" -- in whatever way that is defined -- WP:OWN those articles, and can therefore control the formatting of content. As a result of this misapprehension, Skyerise has gone on a little tirade, reverting my edits, including on one article (Irvington, New York) which I wrote almost in its entirety (but which I still do not WP:OWN, contrary to Skyerise's apparent belief.
  Skyerise fails to cite a policy which gives ownership of this sort to such editors, or even one that defines what "regular editors" of an article are. It was my impression that Wikipedia was open for all to edit, and if there was a dispute between editors, these was settled by discussion on the article talk page, not by running to AN/I to tattle - but perhaps I'm wrong about that?
  If Skyerise feels strongly about this trivial issue, I'll be glad to discuss it on the relevant article talk pages, but I don't believe that this is the appropriate venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, also, I would request that Skyerise be formally warned by an administrator for referring my as suffering from "OCD". Such a diagnosis at a distance from a layperson of a mental disorder is a clear-cut violation of WP:NPA . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I guess you missed the Arbitration ruling on the matter. Sorry for being WP:POINTY, but you have every right to revert to the long-standing style in "your" article, and editors of other articles have every right to revert style changes to the end matter in articles they are watching back to the long-standing style in that article. If you force it again rather than take it to the talk page, you're in the wrong. Skyerise (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Further MOS:NOTES specifically states (in a footnote): "One reason this guideline does not standardize section headings for citations and explanatory notes is that Wikipedia draws editors from many disciplines (history, English, science, etc.), each with its own note and reference section-naming convention (or conventions). For more, see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices, § Establish a house citation style, and Template:Cnote2/example." It also says "If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. General references and other full citations may similarly be either combined or separated (e.g. "References" and "General references"). There may therefore be one, two, three or four sections in all." and "Heading names: Editors may use any reasonable section and subsection names that they choose.[h] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material, though these are more often used to distinguish between multiple end-matter sections or subsections." None of these things should be changed to match your personal preferences, once they are well established in an article. The status quo is presumed to be the WP:CONSENSUS. Skyerise (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• You seemed to have missed the notice at the top of every page of the Manual of Style, that makes it abundantly clear that MOS is not mandatory. When a guideline is made mandatory, it becomes a de facto policy, but policies have to be approved by the community, and the community has never made MOS a policy. So this remains a content dispute, which is not adjudicated at AN/I, but on article talk pages, where all editors are equal, and so-called "regular editors" do not hold a veto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, say that if you like - I always like a good weaseling - but observing an arbitration ruling is not optional. The ruling's intent is very clear: you must gain consensus to make those kinds of changes, preferably in advance. If you're reverted, there is no consensus and the status quo remains. You need two more editors to agree with you on the talk page, or no new consensus is established. So post on the talk page, go to 3O, or whatever you need to get that consensus. Because WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Skyerise (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, I was ready to respond with my usual "this is a content dispute, and administrators do not adjudicate content disputes" remark, but then looked closer and saw that this not rise to the level of a content dispute but rather a dispute about stylistic presentation, which is utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Skyerise has shown themself prone to hollering things like no; you have your own idiosyncracies and WE DON"T WANT THEM in their edit summaries and accusing BMK of having Obsessive–compulsive disorder right here at ANI, which is shockingly inappropriate. I have no idea why this report is at ANI, consider it a complete waste of time of administrators who feel obligated to investigate it, and encourage the OP to back off of their aggressive article ownership

with edit summaries like I know you also know that you are not supposed to change the way the editors of the article have chosen to present the notes and citations. Very poor behavior from Skyerise, as I see the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but, have you seen Irvington, New York? I mean the style issues in the article. At least in Asheville, North Carolina, we know how to use a style guide and why. Skyerise (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328. And given the OCD PA, the failure to actually provide evidence of a behavioural issue (which was asked for over an hour ago, but ignored), and the WP:POINT edits to Irvington, New York, I'd agree that Skyerise really needs to back off here and go and do something else. Black Kite (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ciao bella! My work here is done. Skyerise (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Black Kite (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wanted to use this space to say thank you to BMK, for giving us a different perspective on how to use the references section. Because of this discussion, I may request BMKification of an article in the future or follow in his footsteps, as his changes would be a welcome addition to articles where the TOC has grown too unwieldy. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 2

Special:Contributions/219.77.200.0/22,this LTA edit in this IP range after 21 August in last year (only 219.77.202.56 is not him/her),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, with MCC214#ex umbra in solem above and LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) above above, I'm tripping balls over here! El_C 12:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@MCC214: Hint: it is possible to blacklist individual pages on youtube.com globally so they cannot be used ({{BLRequestRegex|youtube.*?<videocode>}} (or similar) in your request makes getting rid of this only 2 clicks away). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea,but also this LTA DE (revert edit after he/she add youtube links quickly,delete blank after he/she add blank quickly),also,in zh.wiki,I find his/her sock account GAME (do 50 meaningless edit (zh.wiki autoconfirmed user should create account one weeks and do 50 or above edits) to need to get autoconfirmed user,after he/she can edit in related page when page have been semi-protected),so this problem should decided too.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/42.2.168.0/24,only this LTA edit in this IP range after 24 April in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) +Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA edit in this IP range after 9 May in last year (only 42.3.120.242 is not him/her),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Block

Please block It's me kuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for their disruptive editing at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and making so called joke edits to the article since 2020. Cheers --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 14:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively PBLOCK kuru from the page. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• They're playing games at the article, I see. I have p-blocked them for two weeks from editing it. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC).

Bludgeons for Deletion Episode 2: The Indonesian Connexion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Amoeba69th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We've got another case of a single-purpose, possibly high conflict-of-interest editor bludgeoning an AfD discussion. In this case, aside from providing poor sources that have thus far either been dismissed or deferred to people who can read them (read: I've been repeatedly pointing them to WT:WikiProject Indonesia for their Indonesian-language sources) the discussion has begun taking a more personal tone, with such classics as implying millenials should not comment, implying people who don't know her should not comment, implying non-Indonesians shouldn't comment, invoking WP:Don't be high-maintenance to dismiss criticism of his sources or behaviour, and attempting to filibuster with BLP claims. Given the user's editing history I suspect conflict of interest at the least, but they've refused to answer any direct questions, whether on-wiki or on IRC, about their connexion with Azhari. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I just went to the user's talkpage to warn them after I'd seen the AfD, and noticed your alert about this discussion. Likely enough I'm being too soft, but I merely warned. No prejudice to another admin blocking directly. The user's repeated invocation of WP:HIGHMAINT as an argument in discussions is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC).

Noting for the record arguable cavanssing at my userpage here. I accepted their article Dance to Survive at AfC as borderline notable, and they contacted me to ask for help keeping Sarah Azhari, though since it was phrased as request for advice rather than a keep !vote I wasn't too worried about it. Rusalkii (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Amoeba69th has not participated here but did open up a query in reliable sources in an attempt to continue the argument in another venue. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Publicly apologize if my statements sounded angry and/or limiting to another user's logic and opinion. Amoeba69th (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidently the above 'apology' meant nothing. Amoeba69th has now chosen to use Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, of all places, to post a further personal attack on contributors. [308] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I partially blocked Amoeba69th from Sarah Azhari, Talk:Sarah Azhari, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari for the next week after seeing the comment on AE's talk page. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

82.132.213.165 by Alexander Davronov

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

---

82.132.213.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - NOTICE

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

Summary

Another sock of WP:BKFIP gone crazy at Code reuse. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Related reports at ANI/EW

WP:EW#82.132.213.165 by Pyrite Pro

Previous reports at ANI

WP:ANI#Incidents#51.6.138.13_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#Hohaaa_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#User:51.6.138.90_reported_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#Vfnn by Alexander Davronov

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Page moves despite editing restriction.

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

---

User with editing restriction preventing them from moving pages....[309] is moving pages [310]. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that my earlier moves were bold whereas this move is for a valid and suitable reason. Every page move isn't a bold move. There is a good reason as to why this move was conducted because of an error in the infobox of the airline page. The page was recently moved to its former name but the justification had an error. Username006 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Username006, did you successfully appeal the above editing restriction? If not, it sounds like you are prohibited from making even uncontroversial moves, even for a good reason. Andrewgprout, did you discuss this with the editor prior to coming to ANI? It's possible that they just forgot. Please also remember to SIGN your talk page messages. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Thanks yes I missed my signiture when notifying the user not sure why that happened, I have added it now. In answer to your question I did not discuss this with Username006 before bringing it to ANI, unfortunately I do not subscribe to the view that they may have forgotten the restriction, and I do try to keep my direct interactions with this user to a minimum as I suspect it does neither them nor I any good as such interaction has been particularly unfruitful in the past. I was not aware that this was either a requirement or in this case particularly useful. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: there is no such requirement, and you are also not required to interact with other users, at least within this context. I did, however, examine the move that the user did in this case. First of all, yes, it looks like a violation of their editing restriction. But perhaps more importantly, it looks like a good move. It was a technical revert of a bad move done by a perhaps more inexperienced editor, since the refs in the article support what Username006 wrote in their edit summary. The fact that you didn't discuss the move and rather went straight to ANI just makes me concerned about the nature of your complaint. If you consider this move to be disruptive, could you please explain why? AlexEng^(TALK) 07:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: If you mention WP:BRD, then why don't you reply on the talk page is a good question as it may seem you yourself are being disruptive per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by ignoring other editors' questions. Please respond. I myself was unaware about the edit restriction as I took a break in between a block but I have no intentions to do disruptive stuff anymore. Username006 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Username006 also appears to be using multiple accounts [311] which seems problematic at best and I'm not sure the reasons given there for the multiple accounts are acceptable. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: There is no harm in using multiple accounts as there have been no edits which are abusive in any means. See here: [312]. You seem to be WP:POINTY here. Username006 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not true, Username006. If you have an alternative account(s), you must disclose them on your User page. I see you disclose the relationship at User:NeatArena91 but please also do so with your primary account. . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Will do. Username006 (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, Liz. There are valid reasons for not disclosing alternative accounts per WP:SOCKLEGIT. It's unclear if those reasons are relevant here, but your use of the term must is improper. In fact, the guideline uses should and recommended rather than levying a strict prohibition like the one you implied. In any case, it's a moot point, because that account has been used a handful of times and has only one edit outside of userspace; it's clearly not being used to WP:GAME the system. No violation exists, which leads me to my next point. @Andrewgprout: note that users are not required to publicly justify why they have an alternate account, so your opinion on their reasoning is not germane to this discussion and appears from my outside, uninvolved perspective to be some kind of attempt to score additional points against the user. You started this discussion regarding the user's WP:PAGEMOVE, which looks like a violation of their editing restriction, but now we are drifting into other topics. Can you please explain what you're trying to get out of this ANI report? I'll answer your above questions in a separate edit to maintain readability. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• If USername006 is indeed 23 years old [313], I can only congratulate them on taking a photo of an aircraft in 1989 (User:NeatArena91). Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Sorry, that's an error, that is not my image, it is one of my family members' images which I'm advertising as myself on their behalf so I'll correct that if that brings up confusion. That's all. Also, I suspect that Andrewgprout's reason of making this section is not correcting me, but moreover, just a tit for tat edit as I made an edit reporting them:[314] and only hours later did they make the "tit" edit by creating this section. His rationale for making this section also seems to change. Username006 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Back to the original issue at hand. Username006 is banned from moving pages, and there is no exception for, and I quote, a "valid and suitable reason". This ban was worded in unambiguous language and contains no wiggle room. You may not move pages. @Username006: Do you understand this and do you agree to avoid moving articles in the future? --Jayron32 13:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I just closed the AN3 report Username006 made against Andrewgprout as no violation and vexatious - Username006 was trying to make an edit war out of three reverts on three separate articles. I've previously blocked them twice for disruptive moves against consensus. With that bad-faith AN3 report, the violation of their move restriction, and the general inability to listen or work with other editors or to profit from experience, I think a one-month block is in order, and that it will be a last chance. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Acroterion: Okay, so I made a move, but I am doubtful on your rationale as there your assumption of bad-faith and edit war is plain incorrect. If you see the edits, Andrewgprout is being the disruptive one as he doesn't respond and doesn't seem to even see the summary of the edit per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by ignoring consensus. Me having a bad history doesn't mean you pin up all arguments at my fault. If you could, can you explain these reverts Andrewgprout is making? And an exception to bad-faith is when there is a clear justification with diff's mentioned at WP:GOODFAITH. Therefore, I would like you yourself to provide an explanation to Andrewgprout's edits if you think my edits are disruptive instead of blaming everything on me if I get into a conflict with Andrew. Moreover, I don't have a problem to work with every editor. It's Andrew who is behaving so and that's where the problem possibly originates from. A good example would be a person who actually replies and discusses conflicts with me. For instance, I was with an edit conflict with User:Nigel Ish at Convair 990 Coronado here:[315] but, I took the discussion to the talk page and the user replied to me in a civil format and the argument was settled. Here though, that's not the case because Andrew doesn't seem to reply to me, even after Andrew himself promoting WP:BRD and that is a clear-cut disruptive sign per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.Username006 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You are outright banned from moving pages, do you acknowledge that? It's not open to interpretation. And also the WP:POLEMIC you just wrote on youser user page is not helping your case, and in fact will likely be counted against you here. Stop blaming others for your edits. Your edits are the responsibility of you and you alone, no one else forces you to do anything. You're not steering this conversation in a way that looks good on you. Canterbury Tail talk 14:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Yes, I do acknowledge that, and I removed that message on my user page also due to WP:POLEMIC but the problem is "stop blaming others for your edits" is what I hear everytime. Does this mean I have to accept everything and always think that I'm wrong? I believe that's not the case. Also, there has been no justification given to explain Andrewgporuts reverts and not responding to me. If a reasonable answer can be given. I may as well stop this. Otherwise, we will really not proceed anywhere with this argument. Also I suggest you too stay WP:COOL. I can agree with editors as long as they communicate with me which Andrew is clearly not doing. Trying to prove me wrong everytime is (hopefully) not some form of goal here. Username006 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No communication is needed for you not to move pages. You did so when banned from doing so. How is that anyone's fault but your own? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let me make this clear, I agree that I made a bold move and I acknowledge it and I'm not calling it anyone else's fault as I never intended to and I never did but everyone is just turning the tables against me by not answering my question as to, what explains Andrewgprout's reverts and his inability to discuss with me at the talk page even after he himself promotes WP:BRD, please satisfy this instead of trying to flip the situation again and again. Username006 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's be more clear: you have been told to not move pages whatsoever in the past. Your competence is required. Period. No pointing fingers on who did what. – The Grid (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the same pattern of deflection and refusal to listen that got you blocked the first two times. Your report at AN3 was wholly inappropriate, as was the obvious violation of your page move ban. Your demands that other editors conform to your wishes with little reciprocation on your part is familiar ground. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note The earlier statement by Username006 in this thread ("I myself was unaware about the edit restriction as I took a break in between a block but I have no intentions to do disruptive stuff anymore") (my emphasis added) is factually untrue. Username006 acknowledged the edit restriction at the time he was placed on it here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think you should re-read that and try to understand the user's meaning. It's not a claim that they were unaware of the restriction at any time. It's clearly a claim that they forgot about it, after having taken a break from Wikipedia after their block. Saying that it's factually untrue may itself be untrue, because you may have misinterpreted the statement. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Singularity42 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

First things first, I admit it that I made a bold move and that I'm at fault. Let's get that out of the way. Now could you explain Andrewgprout's edits. I'm not trying to deflect any of my edits whatsoever. That's my question. And also, for the first two blocks, I did not use any such tactic and I'm not using it here either. Instead of pushing this question over to the side and taking the easy way out, let's have a discussion to this move. Also, for the unawareness bit of it, I myself was indeed unaware of my move restriction while I was making page moves because I have been pretty busy lately on some other real-life work. I did acknowledge it then but then later, I forgot about it. For the proof: [316], [317], [318]etc. edits. For this edit: [319], a consensus was made on not to make the change but Andrewgprout made no effort into indulge in a conversation with me.Username006 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You moving pages in violation of your topic ban is something that is worth of attention at ANI. Possibly a clear warning is sufficient resolution, but someone opening a thread to discuss you violating your topic ban is not doing anything wrong unless they're socking, the issue is covered by an iban or topic ban or they're otherwise forbidden from opening such threads. OTOH, you've provided no evidence to suggest what Andrewgprout did is worthy of ANI attention so there's no reason for us to discuss it here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm inclined to sympathize with this editor, because it's not fun to feel like you're being backed into a corner from all sides. Their page move was correct and constructive, but it was a technical violation of their editing restriction, because a revert of a page move is itself a page move. The editor appears to be inadvertently conflating or policy on Edit warring with WP:HOUNDING. I don't explicitly endorse the accusation of hounding, but I am reasonably sure that's what they are intending to communicate. Let's try to be kind and not rush headlong into sanctions over what looks like an honest mistake. Last time I checked, assuming good faith was still a cornerstone of Wikipedia's culture. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree at this point. They're aware of their restriction now and nothing else going on is ANI worthy to my mind now. They're free to ask for their page move restriction to be lifted if they can address the reasonings behind it being put in place, though I'd advise to wait a while before putting in such a request due to the recent inadvertent violation. Just get some air and move on I think is best. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I'm ready to request it but where shall I do it? Username006 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would be strongly opposed to any request that the ban be lifted. The pattern of blaming others for their troubles, the return to the behavior that got the ban imposed in the first place, and the misuse of AN3 to try to win arguments is more than I'm willing to overlook. They can always ask that something be moved. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate on the behavior that got the ban imposed in the first place? That was a rather brief ANI thread. Though, as the responding administrator, I'm sure you have more context than I do. I'm willing to believe that the AN3 report was a misunderstanding of our EW policy rather than an attempt to win an argument. Are you confident that your previous interactions with this editor did not color your assessment of their motives? I mean that question earnestly and not as an accusation. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    To be blunt, why are commenting on something you really do not know the full details about? This is not a first offense. – The Grid (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    To be equally blunt, asking for clarification is the appropriate thing to do when one is not familiar with the entire context. If you have additional information to provide, you're welcome to do so. It's not reasonable to expect uninvolved editors to immediately understand the nuances of a situation without diffs and analysis. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • No accusation read. Of course it's based on my previous interactions, and I'm following up on the continuing pattern of conduct by this editor.
    • Response to an edit-warring notice inb December: I was about to collaborate after the 2nd revert. But I got busy in some other work. [320]
    • Self-closure of a move request, pre-ban: The move request has been stretching on for too long. Nothing much is going to happen anymore. It is evident that it should be renamed to the proposed title. [321] (moving was appropriate, but not the closure), which was preceded by I'm sorry, I was irritated, because I have a lot of work pending to do. [322]
    • An early move comment directed at Andrewgprout in May: Because I asked earlier and no one was responding so I had to forcefully make you respond. Also, you have answered nothing in the talk page where I'm continuously asking again and again. [323]
    • More move discussion Asking such stupid questions for a request is not ideal. [ [324]] You, William and acroterion are annoying me to my limits. [325]. And many more incidences of petulance over moves, demanding that everybody else conform to their expectations for snappy response to their demands. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I've looked through this again. September 15, 2021 was when the edit restriction was imposed and acknowledged. Since then Username006 has violated the edit restriction quite a bit:

• November 1, 2021 (just over 6 weeks into the edit restriction)
• November 7, 2021
• December 22, 2021
• January 20, 2022 (this seems the least controversial, but it is still a page move
• January 25, 2022
• January 25, 2022 (different article)
• January 27, 2022

The fact that one of these moves was was only approximately 6 weeks after the imposition of the edit restriction, and the second block was for a related disruption after the imposition of the restriction, makes it very difficult to accept assume good faith here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: That first move, was not even a page move, it was a mere redirect move. I think that it is totally safe to move it as in the end, the function that it serves is identical. It's just creating a new page but moving one, and changing the target of another. I don't know what that second one really is as it is more of a glitch than anything else as in the description, neither the original page, nor the target page match up with the title and I recall doing that move on the correct page, that move was done because of a consensus to revert a bold move I had conducted: [326]. and the third one was a very small modification to the year hyphen for consistency with other articles. The fourth one was to fix the red link at the talk page of it. I have no clue, why the diffs don't show it but it was a red-link and I relocated the page for better readability. The fifth, sixth and seventh ones, are the only ones I really consider bold. The first four were limited in how they were modified. Username006 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I have stopped that nuisance trend of mine more-or-less since the second ban and I'm starting to interact more civil towards everyone. It's no longer continuing. I myself am trying to keep cool as much as possible. But that comment of mine in May, still proves that Andrew is not communicating on the talk page with me and that's how WP:BRDs are supposed to be dealt with while Andrew just seems to be doing the R correctly.Username006 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The moves, and the blaming of others for your conduct continue, as evidenced throughout this thread in your responses.Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are banned from moving pages. That applies to all page moves. There is no exception for moving redirects, no exception for changing hyphens, no exception for moving articles to fix redlinks and no exception for "BOLD" moves. Do you understand this? So far everything you've said here indicates that you don't. You are not going to get out of this by trying to change the conversation to be about someone else. To me this is looking more and more like you don't understand why your edits were wrong and you don't intend to change your behaviour, in which case the only solution left is to ban you from Wikipedia entirely. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Holy heck. This guy not only violated his tban, he did so many times over. And in damn near every post he's made to this thread, he keeps pushing the "Yeah, yeah, I violated my ban, I get it, but what about Andrew????? "Oops, I forgot about my ban" is a threadbare defense. This really looks like a WP:IDHT instance, and in someone who has a tban mixed in with multiple blocks, multiple trips to ANI and barely a thousand articlespace edits, what contributions has he made worth the disruption? I see no reason not to support any sanctions anyone might propose. Ravenswing 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am getting whiplash trying to follow this discussion. We have respected editors saying the consequences for these pages moves are that this should be a final warning to other editors advocating for long blocks and everything in between. Can we lower the temperature here and come to a reasonable consensus? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not going to comment further on this issue, I have a feeling I am too close. But I thought I should mention that following a hunch while looking at the page moves around TAM Transportes Aéreos Regionais Flight 402 the user User_talk:使用者名前0006 that had edited the page User:Username006 subsequently did a "technical" move on translates in Google to "Username first 0006". I'm not pretending to understand this and there are I know more that one reason that could explain this but it does seem possible that this is yet another additional account of User:Username006 and if so it involved the two{!) users talking to themselves. Also I am unsure of the value or correctness of any of these moves as Username006 says that it was inconsistent within the article but I at the moment have no idea which conflicting fact is correct - certainly at least one of the references give non current name. Such slapdash changing article names based on the slightest evidence is what I remember lead to the move sanction last year. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed Could someone with the technical tools confirm if 使用者名前0006 is Username006 socking to get around their ban on moving pages? The overlap in topic area, username similarities, and article space overlaps rise to the level where I would file a SPI. If you need another example Here [327] Username006 requests that a page be moved, and the community universally disagrees. [328] Here 使用者名前0006 shows up to move the page to the title username 006 wanted, ignoring the discussion on the talk page. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Unrelated from a technical point of view. But. I'd appreciate a second checkuser reviewing, because the timelines strongly indicate sockpuppetry (happy to elaborate a little further, privately, to another checkuser) and the username itself seems to translate into "Username" or "Before Username". --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found evidence of socking, and will file a SPI. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Username006 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz! I thought there was more to it than I was seeing. I appreciate your eyes on this. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Steven Crowder experiment

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

---

Youtuber Steven Crowder has conducted a test on Wikipedia using at least 3 accounts: Kkeeran, SDFausta, LandausBatteringRam

The accounts can be seen on: "EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN! | Louder with Crowder" on the "StevenCrowder" YouTube channel (at 2:08) It's likely that the video may attract unconstructive edits to pages featured on the video.

Kkeeran has tried to make changed to the Steven Crowder talk page, without providing notice of a COI. Based on a review on pages edited, the other ones don't seem like they would violate COI and it doesn't look like all the edits are bad (as a couple that I picked to look at looked benign), but it may still violate policies on not being here to build an encylopedia but rather to expose/test Wikipedia editor biases. They don't try to be meatpuppets as they edit different pages.

Swil999 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Swil999, this matter is already being discussed about 15 sections above. Check out the Table of Contents for this page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Fryboy Editor repeatedly violating copyright

User:Fryboy Editor just purely copied in text to Pet Supplies Plus, which I have tagged for revdel and reverted. Looking at their talk page, they have gotten multiple copyright warnings (and other disruptive editing warnings) – one on January 13 (marked Final Warning), one on January 2nd, and one on December 29, as well as multiple G12 (copyright infringement) speedy deletion requests, and some file problems as well. I think this is grounds for a block, and I was directed to here off-wiki. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fryboy Editor I just wanted to make the page better and have a good and lengthy history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fryboy Editor (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The text they added to Pet Supplies Plus was previously present in the article and removed in January 2020. This is a case of reverse copying, where the Blogspot copies from (and cites) the Wikipedia article, so this isn't a copyright violation. That said, there seems to be numerous instances of unattributed copying within Wikipedia in their recent edits, despite multiple previous talk page messages about this. DanCherek (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I guess this isn't technically a copyvio. There is clearly a history here, however, and I'm not sure how this would be qualified as a potential copying within Wikipedia violation? Anyway, I got edit conflicted, but here's what I wrote before:

@Fryboy Editor: That is not grounds for violating copyright. You have received several warnings and ignored them. I hope whatever happens, you take this as a lesson to not ignore warnings that are given to you, anywhere in life. I don't know what other people will think of this situation, and I'm not particularly experienced here, but I would be willing to give you a final chance if you take in these warnings; it's up to the rest of the community at this point, however, not just me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And a recent edit to Big 5 Sporting Goods is obvious copy violation from https://www.big5sportinggoods.com/store/company/History . See [329]. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 03:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fryboy Editor Do I just type the history in my own words?

WP:COPYPASTE. Read it! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 03:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now blocked Fryboy Editor from mainspace and draftspace as a result of six previous warnings; their last one was marked as a final warning. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus at Black and white cookie

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

---

2600:8800:200B:1900::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Black and white cookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It started on January 7 when a user from Mesa, Arizona, removed a section at Black and white cookie about the cookie as a racial metaphor, arguing that it had zero relevance to the topic. I objected to this revert, but got reverted twice more, including ignoring directions to discuss this at the talk page ([330] [331]). Then they did, at Talk:Black_and_white_cookie#Racial_metaphor_section.. At this point, I went on to explain why the section is relevant to the topic and amounts to due weight.

In the same thread, Apocheir (talk · contribs) (who did the second revert) interjected about why they had previously renamed the section from "In popular culture" to "As a racial metaphor". (They did this in November 2021 to prevent addition of irrelevant trivia like what Agtx (talk · contribs) had removed in March 2021.) After this, the IP user changed the header to "In Popular Culture", and commented on the talk page that they thought the old title was better; both of us disagreed. Apochair restored the old title on January 10, though shortened to just "Racial metaphor". On January 13, ignoring our objections, the IP started a slow-motion edit war over the title:

1. Changed to "In popular culture" with an edit summary, Change section header again, as per talk page. I already discussed this a million times on the talk page.
2. Changed to "Racial metaphors/in popular culture" with an edit summary, Improved content for all
3. Changed to "Seinfeld trivia & more" with a misleading edit summary, Fixed typo
4. Changed to "In popular culture" with an edit summary containing only a full stop
5. Changed to "In popular culture"
6. Changed to "Seinfeld trivia and more!" with a mocking edit summary, Lol page consensus

It is unclear if they are aware of WP:3RR, though they are studiously avoiding it. Also pinging @Sea Cow, who reverted two of the listed edits but is not otherwise involved in the dispute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've warned the user of violating 3RR now. After the last edit listed above, they did the following:

1. Changed header to "Racism of cookie" and added a demeaning remark about a BLP
2. Changed header to "tThis is a racist cookie"
3. Changed header once again to "In popular culture"

This is becoming unambiguously a bad-faith edit and the user needs to be blocked urgently. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I normally don't want to discuss content here, but clearly we can't use the Tablet source, as it's clearly unreliable. I can attribute this lovey-dovey we-are-the-world sentiment to is an exchange from the a 1994 episode of Seinfeld (yet another Jewish institution that I loathe because, well, it’s just awful), called “The Dinner Party.” We can't trust any source that says the Seinfeld is awful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to express concerns about an article's content on its talk page. What's pertinent is that this IP editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He's been subject to a one-week IP range block, mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/01 § Black and white cookie, but after that block ended he started right up again. Can we get a longer range block, or a semiprotect on this article? -Apocheir (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Two more edits: Changed to "In popular culture" and Changed to "Everything is racist even cookies". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeat hounding by editor

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

---

For almost two months now, I have been hounded by a person operating primarily without a registered account, but on one occasion created one, which was quickly blocked from editing in the article space. It is clear to me that the differing IP addresses and single account are operated by the same person, as they all 1) have a surprisingly advanced knowledge of wiki policies and procedures and 2) do not understand English very well.

The hounding first began with the IP addresses 49.150.116.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 49.150.96.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I caught the user's attention by removing a flag from an infobox (which I do per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG). It was quickly (and wrongfully) reverted by the person, who was currently paying attention to the article. The person began policing my edit history, making several reverts and citing Wikipedia policies (which they did not fully understand), for example: here, here, and here. You can check this editor interaction tool on the two IP addresses to see how frequently and quickly this person followed me around. My user page was bombarded with warning templates, and the IP address sought to get other editors, for example wallyfromdilbert involved (evidenced by their talk page). With their help, the person left me alone temporarily.

A month later, the person returns to their frantic editing, this time as Aesthetic Writer. Gerda Arendt alerted me to the person's return. They picked fights about infoboxes and made generally unconstructive edits all over the place, and as a result tons of editors voiced complaints on their talk page. I encourage you to review that discussion. Here are more of my edits that were policed and senselessly reverted: here, here, and here. The account was eventually blocked from editing in the article space, and the hounding stopped again.

That is until today. Under a new IP address, 2001:4452:465:9200:C52C:F77:C2A:8752 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the person is back and hell bent on punishing me for policies they believe I have violated in addition to resuming their policing and reverting (see here and here). Strangely enough, the person is now asking editors on the meta wiki to help them. I would really like this series of hounding episodes to stop once and for all, but I don't know how to move forward. Thrakkx (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding: the editor I met as Aesthetic Writer (their talk and my archive) was problematic as not understanding enough English to grasp objections. Just look at their disruption on Talk:Mozart and Leopold Mozart on 9 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I defend my claims against me, so recently I was modifying Thrakkx's actions for some short descriptions and infoboxes which they violates any Wikipedia policy. I did not harass Thrakkx, but recently I removed birth dates for Mason Gamble and Mason Ramsey without sources which they violated WP:BLPPRIVACY. While Denniss replied this message about unsourced date of birth and full name of Mason Gamble which about to take part of WP:BLPDS. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For requirements to file an arbitration enforcement request, by investigating a conduct dispute for Thrakkx's actions by editing short descriptions and infoboxes. If nationality parameter is included (e.g. Bertrand Russell, Audrey Hepburn) if necessary for consensus. If flags in military personnel infoboxes could neither required or optional if needed for dual/multiple (by current or former) countries (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette). If short descriptions in lists by using "Wikipedia/Wikimedia list article" to "none". --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, hatnotes are optionally used, but not to link for trivial uses (e.g. Timeline of the far future). --49.150.100.127 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the global lock log of the account this is User:SwissArmyGuy, the "unique" understanding of English and policy seems to match their typical behaviour quite well. Given that they were arbcom blocked due to some deeply unpleasant stuff these IP ranges should probably be given a long range block. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

But I recently reported Mike Novikoff for misuse of navboxes, because it's my first incident to report via administrators' noticeboard. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, since they mention me... There is an unanimous consensus at WT:MOS that most images, and in particular flags and coats of arms, should be removed from the navboxes per MOS:DECOR. That's exactly what I've been doing for some years now. Then, all of a sudden, 49.150.112.127 comes down like a ton of bricks on me: he reverts my edits at about ten of navboxes at once on 27 December, and again on 30 December. Furthermore, instead of trying to discuss the content questions, he immediately proceeds to some weird complaints and accusations against me, which looks like a real nightmare. I've started the discussion at WT:MOS exactly because of this, and even now, when the consensus is crystal clear there, the IP still calls it a "misuse". In the past few days I thought of asking for either a semi-protection of the templates in question or for a block of the IP user, so thanks a lot for doing the latter. — Mike Novikoff 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/49.150.96.0/19 for three months and Special:contributions/2001:4452:465:9200:0:0:0:0/64 for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Nableezy allegations

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

---

Nableezy has twice insinuated that I am a sock of a banned editor. I am not and have clearly stated this to him.

The context is an RFC in which Nableezy and myself have different views and some participants were outed as socks of banned editors. He has sought to similarly portray me as a banned user which is wrong and unpleasant.

I have asked him to withdraw his allegation but he has declined. I have asked him to at least clarify his comments so that it is clear that the allegations do not personally refer to me; again, he has declined.

Nableezy has already been warned at AN/I over his tone and was again warned about this last October at AE by two admins.

He was specifically warned regarding accusing other editors of being socks of banned users and reminded of the appropriate way to handle his concerns about this.

I was informed after taking this to AE that AN/I was a more appropriate forum for this matter.

AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made no such insinuation, and I leave it to the reader to consider how a new editor finds ANI and AE threads with such ease. As far as that warning in the AE thread, where I said "I am directly saying that Inf-inMD is a sock of NoCal100, who'da thunk it? Well besides me. But as to the point, I have made and make no insinuation that this editor is a sock, just that they do not have the required number of edits to participate in discussions in project space related to the ARBPIA topic area. And they do not. And it would marvelous if somebody would enforce the ARBPIA requirements on that RFC. nableezy - 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That contribution history insinuates sock all by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have always wondered about the editors who make a blank user talk page. Sure it makes the red link blue, but anybody who later looks at it the history is gonna think hmmmmm. Short term vs long term cost/benefit analysis I guess. nableezy - 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a WP:SPI report open, or should a new one be started? Best to discuss socking at WP:SPI, rather than elsewhere. Here's some background music to play while you work. [332] I think WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK may be relevant, and that we should close this, per WP:DENY. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• FWIW I agree with the more robust interpretation of Nableezy's remarks, although I respect that that's not how he intended them; it is clearly a case of being correct "all be it" accidentally so. This means I also agree with Only in Death. This means I disagree vehemently with the OP, that the OP has any case whatsoever, or indeed, standing. This also means I agree with Jehochman: close with no action. SN54129 18:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• People should either raise an SPI or strike accusations of socking - otherwise the accusations are casting aspersions and/or personal attacks. Cut it out - there is already one open Arbcom case at least partly about editors accusing any new editor entering the field of being a sock - we don't want that sort of behaviour to spread to other areas. And no - this should not be brushed under the carpet.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Nah. "New" users who show up in contentious topic areas, showing a familiarity with editors there and with project processes are immediately suspect. Their goal is to sealion regulars into mucking through bureaucracy to get rid of them. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly did I accuse this editor of being a sock? This diff is a response to a user saying that the RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area, and says that evidence of that includes the heavy socking, established, in the past RFC by Icewhiz. This diff says that the user, at the time of their first !vote, had 9 edits and that their prior edits, such as their first ever, show their interest in the topic area. And that, as an aside, the edit immediately prior at RSN to their 9th ever edit and first ever contribution to RSN was an Icewhiz sock. "An aside" is something that is not directly related to the topic under discussion. Not an accusation directly related to the topic under discussion. So what exactly do I need to cut out here? And for the record, Ive already directly said I do not know if this user is a sock. And tbh, I dont actually give a shit if he or she is a sock or not. Either way, fewer than 500 edits and should be restricted from editing that RFC. nableezy - 19:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec)User: Only in Death and User:Serial Number 54129 have certainly accused the OP of being a sock, and your comment about blank talk pages is hardly civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You dont think it is curious when an editor knows that having a red-linked user talk page draws attention and so creates a blank one? Well I do, and I dont find making a remark on the merits of the near term benefit of appearing not to be a new user vs the long term scrutiny such behavior draws to be uncivil in any way. I also find it curious when an editor's first ever edit includes a well formatted, named, and re-referenced reference (eg here). There are all sorts of explanations for that, but a common one is sockpuppetry. I am however aware that SPI is not for fishing, and since I am unable to connect these curiosities to a named editor, yet at least, I have not accused this editor of being a sock, here or anywhere else. And the two diffs used to show me making such an accusation do not do so. nableezy - 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I said their contribution history insinuates a sock. In much the same way an editor's contribution history of removing unflattering material from extreme right-wing US politicians insinuates the editor is a republican.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 and OVERLINK

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

---

• Special:Contributions/240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) has been editing for a bit over a month. Almost all their edits have been to infoboxes of articles related to children's TV shows, and most of these edits have been simply adding wikilinks to common words, in violation of WP:OVERLINK. Examples of linking the word "male" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, "female" 1 2, "cat" or "dog" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, and country names 1 2 3 4. This is not an exhaustive list. They have been hopping around their /64 range, so they have a number of talk pages, and most of them are full of warnings, many of them specifically pointing them to WP:OVERLINK: 1 2 3 4 5 6. They have not replied to any of these warnings, nor ever edited any talk page as far as I can see.

They are editing quite persistently and are wasting a lot of other editors' time to revert their changes. They seem to be using the mobile web, not the app, so I don't think this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, although they may not be aware that they have a talk page. Perhaps a block is necessary to get their attention. CodeTalker (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the /64 range one week for disruption and failure to communicate. They have been active since 12 December and made over 300 edits. Nearly all of their edits get reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Stonewalling on List of management of The Walt Disney Company

• Cytkory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of management of The Walt Disney Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've overhauled the article and attempted to explain every single of my changes, Cytkory reverted them without providing an edit summary once. I opened a discussion on the talk page and asked them to explain their rationale. Cytkory did not elaborate on their reverts but elucidated the page's purpose as they perceived it. I then re-explained, in depth, my changes and why I believe that this page is in dire need of a major overhaul (including that most of its content is entirely devoid of sources). After a period of more than three days, Cytkory did not respond (despite ping and user activity) or raise any further objections, so I went ahead and restored my changes. Cytkory reverted again and explained this time "If you don't like it, submit a request for it to be deleted". I replied and asked that we talk this out. After four days, Cytkory chose not respond (despite ping and user activity; again). I reminded them that content disputes are settled through WP:Consensus and that WP:Communication is required on their talk but this didn't prompt them to have second thoughts either. Unfortunately this is just blatant WP:STONEWALLING and WP:OWNERSHIP at this point.

Note that Cytkory has previously been warned a dozen times and was ultimately blocked from this page for the very same reasons. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I see where on the talk page they have at least given you a reason. You two are so far apart on your positions, I don't know if compromising will be easy. Thank you for pointing out the previous behavioral issues that led to their page block (unfortunately the blocking admin hasn't edited since October), but I'm wondering if the content dispute can't be taken to WP:3O before any further disciplinary action is considered? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry if I assumed ownership of the page. I elaborated on our discussions that this page was originally intended for a more detailed look at the leadership of the Walt Disney Company. The way it was updated by Colonestarrice was very similar to way it looks on The Walt Disney Company#Executive management. That is my position on the issue. Cytkory (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your stance is fine and comprehensible, and I already told you that. The issue is your unwillingness (or inability) to argue beyond the points you have already made. Refusal to respond and comments limited to "If you don't like it, submit a request for it to be deleted" and "it stays the way it was because of The Walt Disney Company page has this page linked described as a MORE COMPREHENSIVE list" are the very things that constitute stonewalling.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about some cosmetic preferences or minor wording differences here; the bulk of the page – as it currently stands – is in direct contravention of core policies such as WP:Verifiability. You have been reprimanded seemingly countless of times on your talk page in the past and you have been an editor for almost ten years, hence you had more than enough time to think about your conduct and approach on Wikipedia. Nevertheless you chose to stonewall here (once again) instead of engaging in a productive discussion, so I'm very sorry, but I'm not buying your apology. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral comment Why do we even have this article on Wikipedia? It has four sources in total, there are no other 'list of management of (company)' articles on en.wiki, and is a complete violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY which should be removed because we're not an official webhost of the Walt Disney Company, as the external links just lead us to several Disney 'about us' pages. The only sections which should be here are the chairman, president, board of directors and CEO sections within the body of the main Disney article. I don't often invoke WP:LAME here, but going by another certain Disney movie, this article needs to be taken out back...to run free in a farm up north with other overstuffed media ownership articles with minute interest. There are other articles here that could use attention rather than wars about how a list of forever redlinkers should look.Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If one puts it like this, I completely agree, and wouldn't oppose if someone were to just put the page up for deletion straight away. However, I still believe Cytkory ought to be sanctioned in some sort of way here; as they still refuse to reflect on and reevaluate their behaviour even after this ludicrous amount of warnings spanning almost ten years. Colonestarrice (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have expressed my deep concerns about this article, which contains a staggering amount of unreferenced BLP content, at Talk: List of management of The Walt Disney Company. I encourage other experienced editors to make their own independent assessments. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Content removal by IP

Could a sysop please look at this discussion which relates to removal of content from the article by an IP who claims to be a bona fide former editor. My impression of their activity, especially as the target is a Churchill article, is that the IP may well be the latest HarveyCarter or similar. The content in question was added to the article this month by Klbrain as an agreed merger (proposed by Dubarr18) and I believe it should be tagged for sources until a reasonable time has elapsed. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you, both on your talk page and the article's talk page, the information is not supported by any citations. You have ignored WP:BURDEN in reverting my edit; to reiterate, BURDEN is a WP:POLICY. As the page is also Featured, WP:FAOWN is also relevant. As you have said you intend to add citations, the please feel free to re-add the information with citations when you can. It's absence is no loss to the article, and much of it is of questionable use and standard for a decent article (when you add citations, please consider just what is being re-added and whether it is relevant).

As I pointed out to you on your own talk page, my former account (to which I do not have access) was named SchroCat. I do not know why you think I am someone else, but as your first post to me (based on no previous interaction at all) was the accusation that "it is obvious from your knowledge of the site that you are evading a block", it's nice to see a variation in the false accusations. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:V says: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. "May" does not mean "must" and this article is not a WP:BLP. It is wrong to remove recently added content, bearing in mind that this followed a WP:MERGE, because that effectively hides it and it could thereby be lost to the article, albeit still in the history. If, however, the content is tagged for citations, it remains visible (for, I stress, a reasonable length of time) and the tag invites citations. As on the article talk page, you have again ignored the bulk of WP:BURDEN and the whole of WP:CONSENSUS. The proposed merger achieved consensus and the material was added to this article by consensus. If an IP can come along and remove the content without consensus only a fortnight later, then the site is leaving itself wide open to abuse.

WP:PRESERVE is relevant as it is part of WP:EDIT, another policy. It includes:

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline cleanup tags as appropriate
• Adding appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself
• Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

So, this content was moved by consensus from its former article (now a redirect) and, because no one has yet been able to fix the citation issues, a cleanup banner was added to request citations. The converse of PRESERVE is WP:CANTFIX which talks about "situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it". The only one of these that could apply here is WP:V re "handling unsourced and contentious material". There is nothing obviously contentious about the material so we are left only with material that has not yet been sourced with no good reason to suppose that it is not verifiable. If you read the content, it has credibility and so we come back to that part of BURDEN which says: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. As there was a clear consensus to merge the content into this article only a couple of weeks ago, an objection to early removal is completely valid and citation needed tags are the sensible solution until a reasonable time has elapsed. As a challenge has been made, I would say one month from now is a reasonable time for citations to be provided and, if that time elapses without provision, I will withdraw my objection.

I have done considerable work on the Churchill articles which are a prime target for IP vandals and so I am entitled to be suspicious when yet another IP appears who deletes content and demonstrates a wide knowledge of site functionality. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR. The bottom line, as Dumuzid has pointed out to you, is to add citations. You may have "done considerable work on the Churchill articles", but that give you no excuse to ignore policy and re-add material challenged for being unsourced. I did "considerable work" on the Churchill as a writer article, taking it through the FL process when I did so, but I don't claim that gives me any special status as far as this or any other Churchill article goes. What I do know is that unsourced content shouldn't be on any article, let alone something featured that is supposed to represent our best work. Spend less time building up a spurious Wiki-lawyer approach and more time adding citations and ensuring the information is well-written and well-supported. I don't see what is so difficult about that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, this should be easy. If you have citations, simply include them. No matter who the IP is (I have no reason to doubt they are who they claim), they are behaving completely reasonably given the applicable policies, in my opinion. Sure, sometimes large sections are added pending citations, but when challenged, the solution is to add the sources. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, I am replying here so as not to confuse the threading, forgive me for that. The fundamental rule of Wikipedia is to cite your sources. Any of the steps you outline might well have been taken, but removal strikes me as perfectly reasonable in this situation. One way or another, the section needs citations. I fundamentally agree with the IP here, and so far as I know, I am, like you, an editor in good standing. I do not see the harm in saying "add the citations before publishing." It has to happen eventually one way or the other. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless a sysop is going to get involved, this discussion might as well be closed because it is a stalemate. I suggest the article talk page is messaged with a request for someone to find sources for the suppressed content and then build it back in, using better prose and structure of course. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fryboy Editor repeatedly violating copyright

User:Fryboy Editor just purely copied in text to Pet Supplies Plus, which I have tagged for revdel and reverted. Looking at their talk page, they have gotten multiple copyright warnings (and other disruptive editing warnings) – one on January 13 (marked Final Warning), one on January 2nd, and one on December 29, as well as multiple G12 (copyright infringement) speedy deletion requests, and some file problems as well. I think this is grounds for a block, and I was directed to here off-wiki. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fryboy Editor I just wanted to make the page better and have a good and lengthy history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fryboy Editor (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The text they added to Pet Supplies Plus was previously present in the article and removed in January 2020. This is a case of reverse copying, where the Blogspot copies from (and cites) the Wikipedia article, so this isn't a copyright violation. That said, there seems to be numerous instances of unattributed copying within Wikipedia in their recent edits, despite multiple previous talk page messages about this. DanCherek (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I guess this isn't technically a copyvio. There is clearly a history here, however, and I'm not sure how this would be qualified as a potential copying within Wikipedia violation? Anyway, I got edit conflicted, but here's what I wrote before:

@Fryboy Editor: That is not grounds for violating copyright. You have received several warnings and ignored them. I hope whatever happens, you take this as a lesson to not ignore warnings that are given to you, anywhere in life. I don't know what other people will think of this situation, and I'm not particularly experienced here, but I would be willing to give you a final chance if you take in these warnings; it's up to the rest of the community at this point, however, not just me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And a recent edit to Big 5 Sporting Goods is obvious copy violation from https://www.big5sportinggoods.com/store/company/History . See [333]. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 03:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fryboy Editor Do I just type the history in my own words?

WP:COPYPASTE. Read it! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 03:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now blocked Fryboy Editor from mainspace and draftspace as a result of six previous warnings; their last one was marked as a final warning. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus at Black and white cookie

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

---

2600:8800:200B:1900::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Black and white cookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It started on January 7 when a user from Mesa, Arizona, removed a section at Black and white cookie about the cookie as a racial metaphor, arguing that it had zero relevance to the topic. I objected to this revert, but got reverted twice more, including ignoring directions to discuss this at the talk page ([334] [335]). Then they did, at Talk:Black_and_white_cookie#Racial_metaphor_section.. At this point, I went on to explain why the section is relevant to the topic and amounts to due weight.

In the same thread, Apocheir (talk · contribs) (who did the second revert) interjected about why they had previously renamed the section from "In popular culture" to "As a racial metaphor". (They did this in November 2021 to prevent addition of irrelevant trivia like what Agtx (talk · contribs) had removed in March 2021.) After this, the IP user changed the header to "In Popular Culture", and commented on the talk page that they thought the old title was better; both of us disagreed. Apochair restored the old title on January 10, though shortened to just "Racial metaphor". On January 13, ignoring our objections, the IP started a slow-motion edit war over the title:

1. Changed to "In popular culture" with an edit summary, Change section header again, as per talk page. I already discussed this a million times on the talk page.
2. Changed to "Racial metaphors/in popular culture" with an edit summary, Improved content for all
3. Changed to "Seinfeld trivia & more" with a misleading edit summary, Fixed typo
4. Changed to "In popular culture" with an edit summary containing only a full stop
5. Changed to "In popular culture"
6. Changed to "Seinfeld trivia and more!" with a mocking edit summary, Lol page consensus

It is unclear if they are aware of WP:3RR, though they are studiously avoiding it. Also pinging @Sea Cow, who reverted two of the listed edits but is not otherwise involved in the dispute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've warned the user of violating 3RR now. After the last edit listed above, they did the following:

1. Changed header to "Racism of cookie" and added a demeaning remark about a BLP
2. Changed header to "tThis is a racist cookie"
3. Changed header once again to "In popular culture"

This is becoming unambiguously a bad-faith edit and the user needs to be blocked urgently. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I normally don't want to discuss content here, but clearly we can't use the Tablet source, as it's clearly unreliable. I can attribute this lovey-dovey we-are-the-world sentiment to is an exchange from the a 1994 episode of Seinfeld (yet another Jewish institution that I loathe because, well, it’s just awful), called “The Dinner Party.” We can't trust any source that says the Seinfeld is awful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to express concerns about an article's content on its talk page. What's pertinent is that this IP editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He's been subject to a one-week IP range block, mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/01 § Black and white cookie, but after that block ended he started right up again. Can we get a longer range block, or a semiprotect on this article? -Apocheir (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Two more edits: Changed to "In popular culture" and Changed to "Everything is racist even cookies". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeat hounding by editor

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

---

For almost two months now, I have been hounded by a person operating primarily without a registered account, but on one occasion created one, which was quickly blocked from editing in the article space. It is clear to me that the differing IP addresses and single account are operated by the same person, as they all 1) have a surprisingly advanced knowledge of wiki policies and procedures and 2) do not understand English very well.

The hounding first began with the IP addresses 49.150.116.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 49.150.96.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I caught the user's attention by removing a flag from an infobox (which I do per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG). It was quickly (and wrongfully) reverted by the person, who was currently paying attention to the article. The person began policing my edit history, making several reverts and citing Wikipedia policies (which they did not fully understand), for example: here, here, and here. You can check this editor interaction tool on the two IP addresses to see how frequently and quickly this person followed me around. My user page was bombarded with warning templates, and the IP address sought to get other editors, for example wallyfromdilbert involved (evidenced by their talk page). With their help, the person left me alone temporarily.

A month later, the person returns to their frantic editing, this time as Aesthetic Writer. Gerda Arendt alerted me to the person's return. They picked fights about infoboxes and made generally unconstructive edits all over the place, and as a result tons of editors voiced complaints on their talk page. I encourage you to review that discussion. Here are more of my edits that were policed and senselessly reverted: here, here, and here. The account was eventually blocked from editing in the article space, and the hounding stopped again.

That is until today. Under a new IP address, 2001:4452:465:9200:C52C:F77:C2A:8752 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the person is back and hell bent on punishing me for policies they believe I have violated in addition to resuming their policing and reverting (see here and here). Strangely enough, the person is now asking editors on the meta wiki to help them. I would really like this series of hounding episodes to stop once and for all, but I don't know how to move forward. Thrakkx (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding: the editor I met as Aesthetic Writer (their talk and my archive) was problematic as not understanding enough English to grasp objections. Just look at their disruption on Talk:Mozart and Leopold Mozart on 9 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I defend my claims against me, so recently I was modifying Thrakkx's actions for some short descriptions and infoboxes which they violates any Wikipedia policy. I did not harass Thrakkx, but recently I removed birth dates for Mason Gamble and Mason Ramsey without sources which they violated WP:BLPPRIVACY. While Denniss replied this message about unsourced date of birth and full name of Mason Gamble which about to take part of WP:BLPDS. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For requirements to file an arbitration enforcement request, by investigating a conduct dispute for Thrakkx's actions by editing short descriptions and infoboxes. If nationality parameter is included (e.g. Bertrand Russell, Audrey Hepburn) if necessary for consensus. If flags in military personnel infoboxes could neither required or optional if needed for dual/multiple (by current or former) countries (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette). If short descriptions in lists by using "Wikipedia/Wikimedia list article" to "none". --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, hatnotes are optionally used, but not to link for trivial uses (e.g. Timeline of the far future). --49.150.100.127 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the global lock log of the account this is User:SwissArmyGuy, the "unique" understanding of English and policy seems to match their typical behaviour quite well. Given that they were arbcom blocked due to some deeply unpleasant stuff these IP ranges should probably be given a long range block. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

But I recently reported Mike Novikoff for misuse of navboxes, because it's my first incident to report via administrators' noticeboard. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, since they mention me... There is an unanimous consensus at WT:MOS that most images, and in particular flags and coats of arms, should be removed from the navboxes per MOS:DECOR. That's exactly what I've been doing for some years now. Then, all of a sudden, 49.150.112.127 comes down like a ton of bricks on me: he reverts my edits at about ten of navboxes at once on 27 December, and again on 30 December. Furthermore, instead of trying to discuss the content questions, he immediately proceeds to some weird complaints and accusations against me, which looks like a real nightmare. I've started the discussion at WT:MOS exactly because of this, and even now, when the consensus is crystal clear there, the IP still calls it a "misuse". In the past few days I thought of asking for either a semi-protection of the templates in question or for a block of the IP user, so thanks a lot for doing the latter. — Mike Novikoff 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/49.150.96.0/19 for three months and Special:contributions/2001:4452:465:9200:0:0:0:0/64 for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Nableezy allegations

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

---

Nableezy has twice insinuated that I am a sock of a banned editor. I am not and have clearly stated this to him.

The context is an RFC in which Nableezy and myself have different views and some participants were outed as socks of banned editors. He has sought to similarly portray me as a banned user which is wrong and unpleasant.

I have asked him to withdraw his allegation but he has declined. I have asked him to at least clarify his comments so that it is clear that the allegations do not personally refer to me; again, he has declined.

Nableezy has already been warned at AN/I over his tone and was again warned about this last October at AE by two admins.

He was specifically warned regarding accusing other editors of being socks of banned users and reminded of the appropriate way to handle his concerns about this.

I was informed after taking this to AE that AN/I was a more appropriate forum for this matter.

AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made no such insinuation, and I leave it to the reader to consider how a new editor finds ANI and AE threads with such ease. As far as that warning in the AE thread, where I said "I am directly saying that Inf-inMD is a sock of NoCal100, who'da thunk it? Well besides me. But as to the point, I have made and make no insinuation that this editor is a sock, just that they do not have the required number of edits to participate in discussions in project space related to the ARBPIA topic area. And they do not. And it would marvelous if somebody would enforce the ARBPIA requirements on that RFC. nableezy - 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That contribution history insinuates sock all by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have always wondered about the editors who make a blank user talk page. Sure it makes the red link blue, but anybody who later looks at it the history is gonna think hmmmmm. Short term vs long term cost/benefit analysis I guess. nableezy - 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a WP:SPI report open, or should a new one be started? Best to discuss socking at WP:SPI, rather than elsewhere. Here's some background music to play while you work. [336] I think WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK may be relevant, and that we should close this, per WP:DENY. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• FWIW I agree with the more robust interpretation of Nableezy's remarks, although I respect that that's not how he intended them; it is clearly a case of being correct "all be it" accidentally so. This means I also agree with Only in Death. This means I disagree vehemently with the OP, that the OP has any case whatsoever, or indeed, standing. This also means I agree with Jehochman: close with no action. SN54129 18:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• People should either raise an SPI or strike accusations of socking - otherwise the accusations are casting aspersions and/or personal attacks. Cut it out - there is already one open Arbcom case at least partly about editors accusing any new editor entering the field of being a sock - we don't want that sort of behaviour to spread to other areas. And no - this should not be brushed under the carpet.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Nah. "New" users who show up in contentious topic areas, showing a familiarity with editors there and with project processes are immediately suspect. Their goal is to sealion regulars into mucking through bureaucracy to get rid of them. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly did I accuse this editor of being a sock? This diff is a response to a user saying that the RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area, and says that evidence of that includes the heavy socking, established, in the past RFC by Icewhiz. This diff says that the user, at the time of their first !vote, had 9 edits and that their prior edits, such as their first ever, show their interest in the topic area. And that, as an aside, the edit immediately prior at RSN to their 9th ever edit and first ever contribution to RSN was an Icewhiz sock. "An aside" is something that is not directly related to the topic under discussion. Not an accusation directly related to the topic under discussion. So what exactly do I need to cut out here? And for the record, Ive already directly said I do not know if this user is a sock. And tbh, I dont actually give a shit if he or she is a sock or not. Either way, fewer than 500 edits and should be restricted from editing that RFC. nableezy - 19:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec)User: Only in Death and User:Serial Number 54129 have certainly accused the OP of being a sock, and your comment about blank talk pages is hardly civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You dont think it is curious when an editor knows that having a red-linked user talk page draws attention and so creates a blank one? Well I do, and I dont find making a remark on the merits of the near term benefit of appearing not to be a new user vs the long term scrutiny such behavior draws to be uncivil in any way. I also find it curious when an editor's first ever edit includes a well formatted, named, and re-referenced reference (eg here). There are all sorts of explanations for that, but a common one is sockpuppetry. I am however aware that SPI is not for fishing, and since I am unable to connect these curiosities to a named editor, yet at least, I have not accused this editor of being a sock, here or anywhere else. And the two diffs used to show me making such an accusation do not do so. nableezy - 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I said their contribution history insinuates a sock. In much the same way an editor's contribution history of removing unflattering material from extreme right-wing US politicians insinuates the editor is a republican.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 and OVERLINK

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

---

• Special:Contributions/240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) has been editing for a bit over a month. Almost all their edits have been to infoboxes of articles related to children's TV shows, and most of these edits have been simply adding wikilinks to common words, in violation of WP:OVERLINK. Examples of linking the word "male" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, "female" 1 2, "cat" or "dog" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, and country names 1 2 3 4. This is not an exhaustive list. They have been hopping around their /64 range, so they have a number of talk pages, and most of them are full of warnings, many of them specifically pointing them to WP:OVERLINK: 1 2 3 4 5 6. They have not replied to any of these warnings, nor ever edited any talk page as far as I can see.

They are editing quite persistently and are wasting a lot of other editors' time to revert their changes. They seem to be using the mobile web, not the app, so I don't think this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, although they may not be aware that they have a talk page. Perhaps a block is necessary to get their attention. CodeTalker (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the /64 range one week for disruption and failure to communicate. They have been active since 12 December and made over 300 edits. Nearly all of their edits get reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Stonewalling on List of management of The Walt Disney Company

• Cytkory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of management of The Walt Disney Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've overhauled the article and attempted to explain every single of my changes, Cytkory reverted them without providing an edit summary once. I opened a discussion on the talk page and asked them to explain their rationale. Cytkory did not elaborate on their reverts but elucidated the page's purpose as they perceived it. I then re-explained, in depth, my changes and why I believe that this page is in dire need of a major overhaul (including that most of its content is entirely devoid of sources). After a period of more than three days, Cytkory did not respond (despite ping and user activity) or raise any further objections, so I went ahead and restored my changes. Cytkory reverted again and explained this time "If you don't like it, submit a request for it to be deleted". I replied and asked that we talk this out. After four days, Cytkory chose not respond (despite ping and user activity; again). I reminded them that content disputes are settled through WP:Consensus and that WP:Communication is required on their talk but this didn't prompt them to have second thoughts either. Unfortunately this is just blatant WP:STONEWALLING and WP:OWNERSHIP at this point.

Note that Cytkory has previously been warned a dozen times and was ultimately blocked from this page for the very same reasons. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I see where on the talk page they have at least given you a reason. You two are so far apart on your positions, I don't know if compromising will be easy. Thank you for pointing out the previous behavioral issues that led to their page block (unfortunately the blocking admin hasn't edited since October), but I'm wondering if the content dispute can't be taken to WP:3O before any further disciplinary action is considered? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry if I assumed ownership of the page. I elaborated on our discussions that this page was originally intended for a more detailed look at the leadership of the Walt Disney Company. The way it was updated by Colonestarrice was very similar to way it looks on The Walt Disney Company#Executive management. That is my position on the issue. Cytkory (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your stance is fine and comprehensible, and I already told you that. The issue is your unwillingness (or inability) to argue beyond the points you have already made. Refusal to respond and comments limited to "If you don't like it, submit a request for it to be deleted" and "it stays the way it was because of The Walt Disney Company page has this page linked described as a MORE COMPREHENSIVE list" are the very things that constitute stonewalling.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about some cosmetic preferences or minor wording differences here; the bulk of the page – as it currently stands – is in direct contravention of core policies such as WP:Verifiability. You have been reprimanded seemingly countless of times on your talk page in the past and you have been an editor for almost ten years, hence you had more than enough time to think about your conduct and approach on Wikipedia. Nevertheless you chose to stonewall here (once again) instead of engaging in a productive discussion, so I'm very sorry, but I'm not buying your apology. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral comment Why do we even have this article on Wikipedia? It has four sources in total, there are no other 'list of management of (company)' articles on en.wiki, and is a complete violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY which should be removed because we're not an official webhost of the Walt Disney Company, as the external links just lead us to several Disney 'about us' pages. The only sections which should be here are the chairman, president, board of directors and CEO sections within the body of the main Disney article. I don't often invoke WP:LAME here, but going by another certain Disney movie, this article needs to be taken out back...to run free in a farm up north with other overstuffed media ownership articles with minute interest. There are other articles here that could use attention rather than wars about how a list of forever redlinkers should look.Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If one puts it like this, I completely agree, and wouldn't oppose if someone were to just put the page up for deletion straight away. However, I still believe Cytkory ought to be sanctioned in some sort of way here; as they still refuse to reflect on and reevaluate their behaviour even after this ludicrous amount of warnings spanning almost ten years. Colonestarrice (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have expressed my deep concerns about this article, which contains a staggering amount of unreferenced BLP content, at Talk: List of management of The Walt Disney Company. I encourage other experienced editors to make their own independent assessments. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Content removal by IP

Could a sysop please look at this discussion which relates to removal of content from the article by an IP who claims to be a bona fide former editor. My impression of their activity, especially as the target is a Churchill article, is that the IP may well be the latest HarveyCarter or similar. The content in question was added to the article this month by Klbrain as an agreed merger (proposed by Dubarr18) and I believe it should be tagged for sources until a reasonable time has elapsed. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you, both on your talk page and the article's talk page, the information is not supported by any citations. You have ignored WP:BURDEN in reverting my edit; to reiterate, BURDEN is a WP:POLICY. As the page is also Featured, WP:FAOWN is also relevant. As you have said you intend to add citations, the please feel free to re-add the information with citations when you can. It's absence is no loss to the article, and much of it is of questionable use and standard for a decent article (when you add citations, please consider just what is being re-added and whether it is relevant).

As I pointed out to you on your own talk page, my former account (to which I do not have access) was named SchroCat. I do not know why you think I am someone else, but as your first post to me (based on no previous interaction at all) was the accusation that "it is obvious from your knowledge of the site that you are evading a block", it's nice to see a variation in the false accusations. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:V says: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. "May" does not mean "must" and this article is not a WP:BLP. It is wrong to remove recently added content, bearing in mind that this followed a WP:MERGE, because that effectively hides it and it could thereby be lost to the article, albeit still in the history. If, however, the content is tagged for citations, it remains visible (for, I stress, a reasonable length of time) and the tag invites citations. As on the article talk page, you have again ignored the bulk of WP:BURDEN and the whole of WP:CONSENSUS. The proposed merger achieved consensus and the material was added to this article by consensus. If an IP can come along and remove the content without consensus only a fortnight later, then the site is leaving itself wide open to abuse.

WP:PRESERVE is relevant as it is part of WP:EDIT, another policy. It includes:

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline cleanup tags as appropriate
• Adding appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself
• Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

So, this content was moved by consensus from its former article (now a redirect) and, because no one has yet been able to fix the citation issues, a cleanup banner was added to request citations. The converse of PRESERVE is WP:CANTFIX which talks about "situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it". The only one of these that could apply here is WP:V re "handling unsourced and contentious material". There is nothing obviously contentious about the material so we are left only with material that has not yet been sourced with no good reason to suppose that it is not verifiable. If you read the content, it has credibility and so we come back to that part of BURDEN which says: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. As there was a clear consensus to merge the content into this article only a couple of weeks ago, an objection to early removal is completely valid and citation needed tags are the sensible solution until a reasonable time has elapsed. As a challenge has been made, I would say one month from now is a reasonable time for citations to be provided and, if that time elapses without provision, I will withdraw my objection.

I have done considerable work on the Churchill articles which are a prime target for IP vandals and so I am entitled to be suspicious when yet another IP appears who deletes content and demonstrates a wide knowledge of site functionality. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR. The bottom line, as Dumuzid has pointed out to you, is to add citations. You may have "done considerable work on the Churchill articles", but that give you no excuse to ignore policy and re-add material challenged for being unsourced. I did "considerable work" on the Churchill as a writer article, taking it through the FL process when I did so, but I don't claim that gives me any special status as far as this or any other Churchill article goes. What I do know is that unsourced content shouldn't be on any article, let alone something featured that is supposed to represent our best work. Spend less time building up a spurious Wiki-lawyer approach and more time adding citations and ensuring the information is well-written and well-supported. I don't see what is so difficult about that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, this should be easy. If you have citations, simply include them. No matter who the IP is (I have no reason to doubt they are who they claim), they are behaving completely reasonably given the applicable policies, in my opinion. Sure, sometimes large sections are added pending citations, but when challenged, the solution is to add the sources. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, I am replying here so as not to confuse the threading, forgive me for that. The fundamental rule of Wikipedia is to cite your sources. Any of the steps you outline might well have been taken, but removal strikes me as perfectly reasonable in this situation. One way or another, the section needs citations. I fundamentally agree with the IP here, and so far as I know, I am, like you, an editor in good standing. I do not see the harm in saying "add the citations before publishing." It has to happen eventually one way or the other. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless a sysop is going to get involved, this discussion might as well be closed because it is a stalemate. I suggest the article talk page is messaged with a request for someone to find sources for the suppressed content and then build it back in, using better prose and structure of course. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/117.234.192.0/18

• 117.234.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• Alka Nupur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alka Nupur Varshney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can an admin please stop this IP range from making repeated cut-and-paste page moves disruptively before their editing gets worse? Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Can't block that IP range without collateral damage, but someone did block the IP, protect the page, and I protected the redirect. That should get the job done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)