Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115

Disruptive editor, personal attacks.

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

Per [1], [2], [3] and [4]. This user has persistently engaged in personal attacks against a user he disagrees with, and is just the latest in a long line of controversial users on that page. Does this seem like a user who is on here to WP:BUILDWP? Wareno (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Well... publicly accusing another user of sockpuppetry in the article's talk page simply based on your assumptions isn't a good way to de-escalate tensions. And such an accusation without solid evidence is a form of personal attack in itself. Based on your suspicion, opening an SPI as you did is fine, but don't toss out public accusations based on assumptions since those can turn out to be quite wrong, and that only serves raise tensions. There does seem to be a language barrier issue, which would be WP:CIR. But some of the escalation on this issue appears to be self-inflicted. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this edit [5]. I take it you think nothing of commencing activity on Wikipedia by accusing another editor of being biased, a nationalist and a vandal and demanding that a previous - very inadequate - version be reinstated? And I'll have you know I not only very much maintain my suspicion, but my request as well. Wareno (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. Having suspicions about users is fine. Publicly airing them on the article's talk page when they are merely suspicions isn't. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Really, I "publicly voiced my suspicions" that a recently created account who began his activity by calling me a biased vandal and a nationalist is a sockpuppet? Thanks for the heads up for as much as that's worth, perhaps I was indeed too patient for not having reported him already. Wareno (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Wareno: per the red banner at the top of this page you should have notified the editor about this ANI; I have done so for you.

To be clear, Theguywholearnhistory's first edit was to start a thread at the teahouse called Need help with biased editing of a article about Battle Of benadir, and their third edit started off by stating that this article has been vandalized by a Portuguese nationalist. Wareno was only pinged to the page a day later by Colonestarrice (who was there responding to Theguywholearnhistory's edit request), after Theguywholearnhistory had made clear that the person who i suppose did it is "Wareno" He has been warned for vandalism before on the battle of sincouwaan. [...] He has changed this article many times to manipulate history of what actually happened. I am very sure of this guy vandalizing this.

Theguywholearnhistory also said that they are very new to using wikipedia and that they looked at this article 1 month ago and it was very much different and with better detailed proof and references. The revision they happened to see and have asked now to be reinstated through an edit request was one that an LTA has been trying to push into the article through countless socks [6] vs [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Despite this, for various reasons SPI has now made it clear that Theguywholearnhistory is probably not this sockmaster.

I think the best solution going forward is to try and have a civil and productive discussion about the disputed content. In particular, the word 'vandalism' has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia (please read Wikipedia:Vandalism) and should never be used outside of this context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend actually reading the "disputed" content with supposedly "better detailed proof and references", and it should make things clear. Does it not seem strange that someone who is supposedly "very new using wikipedia" just so happens to have a rather broad background knowledge about another user he's supposedly never met and the articles he has edited elsewhere on Wikipedia a long time ago? Which he uses to direct personal attacks? This whole situation is frankly ridiculous, this sort of behaviour is unfortunately more than common among barely-created accounts who wish to alter that page, which is protected for this very reason, and users have been blocked for far, far less as we can see here. A supposedly "new user" whose first activity is to direct personal attacks at another user he's supposedly "never met", yet he hasn't already been blocked for WP:NOTHERE, WP:PERSONAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE, business as usual? I'd like to ping @Oshwah: because he happens to already be familiar with the activities on this page from a while back, in the hopes this issue will be speedily resolved and done with. Wareno (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wareno: ANI is for behavioral issues, not content disputes, so you can leave out all of the I would recommend actually reading the "disputed" content with supposedly "better detailed proof and references" stuff. While I am in no way excusing anything said or done by the Theguywholearnhistory, another editor's behavior is not an excuse for you to respond in kind - period. You need to start with AFG that their indication they were new was truthful and thus certain policies such as user conduct may need to be pointed out. Dragging it into ANI should be a last resort after an actual attempt has been made to de-escalate the tensions and you have made no effort to do so. Your very first engagement was to threaten to drag it into ANI and accuse them of sockpuppetry without evidence: [14]. Your own actions are also under scrutiny when you bring it here (WP:BOOMERANG) and some of your responses fall under guidelines you're suggesting they be blocked for. Seriously, do some introspection, read WP:RTI and WP:CIVIL, especially the section on dealing with incivility (and I mean really read it) and spend some time reflecting on that. (It wouldn't hurt to familiarize yourself with WP:ANIADVICE, too.) Had you followed some of those guidelines, you might have been able to avoid all of this. As Apaugasma noted, your best course of action is to start by trying to work out the content issues with Theguywholearnhistory, focused on content not behavior. If they say something you deem to be incivility, point it out gently (AGF). Make an actual effort to de-escalate the tensions and try to move forward. If the other user is truly WP:NOTHERE, that will actually become evident. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Your best course of action is to start by trying to work out the issues with the account which started its activity by directing insults at you in very poor English, demanding that very inadequate edits also in very poor English be reinstated again, in the page that's been plagued by persistent vandalism for years since it's inception". You know what, thanks for the advice but you obviously haven't looked into the issue you're trying to pass judgement on. Have a good day. Wareno (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that Wareno has a point about actually reading the disputed content. When comparing the current revision [15] with the revision proposed by Theguywholearnhistory [16] (cf. [17]), the proposed revision does in fact read like a tendentious mirror-universe fantasy. Content is important, and egregious violations of content policy should not be tolerated. If the proposed revision turns out to be what it looks like, it would be valid to ask whether Theguywholearnhistory has the right competencies and/or mindset to build an encyclopedia.

But of course, that has to turn out first. Where I agree with ButlerBlog is that the way to deal with this is patience and waiting it out, not by throwing AGF out of the window and refusing to engage in civil discussion. Users who are truly NOTHERE always reveal themselves as such in the mid to long term. Talk about what sources are saying what for a bit on the talk page (literal quotes work well!), and see where that gets you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that there is a WP:CIR issue here regarding Theguywholearnhistory - FTR, that's something I noted at the very beginning, when I read the edits in question. ;-)ButlerBlog (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing other people's user page and personal attacks

GalantFan made this edit on User:Green547, a user who been inactive for 5 years. They restored an older version of their userpage and copied an old discussion this user had on a different page. They then added commentary at the bottom mocking Green547: "Look at this. ^ This guy claims he's "propagating truth", yet he's upset that most of Wiki editors oppose a celebrity famous for spending his entire adult life lying, cheating, stealing, and conning." GalantFan restored text on the Second Battle of Fallujah that Green547 had removed years ago. I reported GalantFan over a week ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#GalantFan POV pushing and retaliatory reverts because of disruptive editing and I also suspected them of engaging in sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GalantFan, but the dispute had since fizzled out. However, they continue to be disruptive and editing someone else's userpage in this manner with personal attacks is beyond inappropriate. GreenCows (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

For someone who accuses others, incorrectly, of engaging in sockpuppetry, GreenCows, you sure seem very interested in Green547 and what I think about him.GalantFan (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @GalantFan: Don't screw around with other editor's user pages unless you have a POLICY-BASED reason to do so - I have reverted your changes. I have restored the stable version of Second Battle of Fallujah until your changes can be discussed on the article's talk page. If you suspect that GreenCows is a sockpuppet, please file a report on WP:SPI with your evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I am absolutely not the same user as Green547. That user isn't even blocked and what evidence is there? We both have Green in our usernames? And we have both edited the Second Battle of Fallujah?. Beyond My Ken, GalantFan also copied the text they added to the user page, including the personal attack, to to Green547's talk page and their own talk page. They also just made this edit again, seemingly mocking Green547. GreenCows (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You think it is a personal attack "mocking" that I simply illustrated irony? That seems a little strong for "This guy claims he's "propagating truth", yet he's upset that most of Wiki editors oppose a celebrity famous for spending his entire adult life lying, cheating, stealing, and conning."GalantFan (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt there is any solid evidence, but he sure makes similar edits on the same subjects.

My changes to the Fallujah article are well sourced, well organized, and accurate, unlike much of the info that was there.GalantFan (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @GalantFan: - I have no view on any content dispute that you are involved in. However, editing other editors' userpages without their express permission is not on. Trying to pick arguments with accounts that have not edited for over five years is pointless. It does not matter whether GreenCows and Green547 are the same person - policy allows for people to abandon one account and continue editing with another. I don't know why you are interested in Green547's editing, but I would advise you to lose interest in it going forward. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Is there any content I added to the Fallujah article that you find objectionable?GalantFan (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I have no view on that, I have not looked at it - this noticeboard is here to address issues surrounding editors' conduct, not to resolve content disputes. Your conduct in this matter has been questionable - I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but it looks like trying to pick a fight with a long-dormant account. Whatever it is, knock it off. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking of editor's conduct, why is it that I am supposed to ask one particular editor for permission to make changes to an article he has previously edited? Nobody else has any objection to anything I wrote. GreenCows is apparently watching what I put on my own talk page, and other pages that he has never even edited on.GalantFan (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  And speaking of editor's conduct, GreenCows is persistently doing the textbook definition of whitewashing_(censorship)

  glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data.

  Then he accuses me and other people of POV pushing when he does classic examples of it, using whitewashing as well as "expressions of doubt" (supposed, alleged)

  Then he accuses me of sockpuppet when it really looks like he has the same behavior, the same accusations, the same vocabulary as the old account which should not be named.GalantFan (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  And he accuses me of edit warring when I spend hours reading and gathering good citations and he just comes along and reverts it all, or asks somebody else to revert it all, and tells me I'm supposed to see if he approves of something I write.GalantFan (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan, why did you revert Beyond My Ken when they have told you to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page and why are you responding to a 7 year old comment by Green547 when Girth Summit has just advised you to stop picking a fight with a long-dormant account? I actually think some of the changes you made to the article were good, while there were issues with other changes, and I would've been willing to discuss it on the article talk page. GreenCows (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean besides the fact that nobody objected to any of the content I added.

Since you claim not to be Green547, why did you make the misleading claim that the information I added to the article was what he deleted? How would you know what he deleted?

And no I most certainly did NOT "restored text ... that Green547 had removed". I wrote new content of what the controversies were and supported the content with good sources I found on google and other articles.

Whereas YOU deleted the fact that US forces fired DU and downplayed WP when THOSE ARE THE CONTROVERSIES.GalantFan (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What good is having a controversy section when whitewashers keep deleting the controversy or acting like it was no big deal?GalantFan (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Take the discussion of the content of the article to the article's talk page. Don't bother trying to breathe life into discussions that trailed off years ago - nobody will read them. Start a new section if needs be. And drop the question of whether GreenCows is Green547 - there is no overlap in the dates of their editing, and the old account is under no editing restrictions, so there would be no policy-based reason why they couldn't have abandoned one account and created a new one. Just engage on the talk page with active accounts/discussions. (Somebody probably ought to set that talkpage up to auto-archive - there's no good reason to have years-old discussions on an active page.) Girth Summit _(blether) 17:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

How would GreenCows know what Green547 deleted? Eeesh, by looking at the edit history. Anyone can do that, and one would think that someone registered on Wikipedia for fifteen years would know that. Ravenswing 22:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

First all, GreenCows was completely incorrect that I merely restored what Green547 deleted. I spent hours finding sources and writing new content that improved the accuracy, as well as reviewing other wiki articles on related subjects.

Why would GreenCows care about what Green547 deleted?

How did GreenCows even notice what I wrote on my own talk page or Green547's when he had no reason to be watching either one?

And lastly, supposedly this had nothing to do with my Fallujah edit in the first place, which is the article that GreenCows was watching.

GalantFan (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Before you go removing the controversies from the section titled Controversies, you should please open a topic on the talk page of WHY you think the controversies should be removed from the section titled Controversies.GalantFan (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Nobody even has any interest in discussing the content of the article with me, except the guy who completely deleted the fact that US fired depleted uranium ammunition, and that civilians did in fact die from white phosphorus from an article about Fallujah. That's the guy you think I need to get permission to edit the article from. GalantFan (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• I never said, and would never say, that you had to get permission from a specific editor. What I said was, that since you made a major change to an article, and it was disputed, you should therefore get a consensus for your changes from discussion with other editors on the article's talk page. This is Wikipedia's S.O.P., please abide by it, and -- for your own sake - please follow what an admin told you above and drop your claims about GreenCows and Green547. If you keep it up, it will only lead to your being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• @GalantFan and GreenCows: You have both posted on my user talk page about this. Please do not do so again. This is the place where discussion about this disagreement should take place if it concerns editor behavior (the article talk page is where to discuss content) - I have no interest in expanding or prolonging this discussion onto my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, once again, I apologise for commenting on your talk page. The main issue is GalantFan's behaviour as opposed to a content dispute and it's getting out of hand. I have made sure to be as civil as possible and not edit war. GalantFan hasn't done the same. I haven't even edited the Second Battle of Fallujah page in two weeks and the content that GalantFan has added is not the main issue. I opened this thread initially because they essentially vandalized another user's userpage with mocking commentary added which is so wildly inappropriate. I commented on Beyond My Ken's talk page about why I wasn't responding to every point GalantFan was making and for advice because it's very stressful dealing with a situation like this. GalantFan responded there with even more very uncivil and combative comments attacking me and false accusations as they have in this thread. They completely missed or ignored the point that their edits on the Fallujah article are not the main issue and it's other behavioural issues that are the key problem. They also falsely accused me of reverting all their edits on that article when I haven't edited the article in two weeks. They edit warred and reverted both BMK and GabberFlasted on that article and restored their favored version. They continued to falsely accuse me of being Green547 despite being told to stop by multiple editors including an admin Girth Summit. They have thrown so many blatantly false accusations at me and they have not listened to any other editors. This is really getting out of hand. GreenCows (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no edit war that you didn't create, nobody reverted any of my edits who you didn't ask them to. BMK and GabberFlasted have no complaint about the article if you would stop bringing it up.

If you actually wanted to make a discussion of the content of what I wrote, there isn't any need to revert me before doing it. If you want a talk page discussion about content, why haven't YOU made that discussion, before YOU make changes?

But frankly you are a big part of the reason the article section was so poor in the first place, as displayed by the edits you make here and elsewhere. You spend more time tearing content down than you do building it. And you don't see it in yourself but YOU are the POV pusher. WP:CIR

I admit I made a mistake in editing an abandoned user page. That mistake won't happen again.

GalantFan (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

and speaking of you being civil, you ought to read this because it's totally you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing GalantFan (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan has opened up a thread on talk about the controversies section on Second Battle of Fallujah as Bonadea and others suggested which I would be willing to contribute to. As I said before, some of GalantFan's additions were good but there were major issues aswell. However, GalantFan has also started another section: Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah#Content removed from the article by GreenCows - disruptive?. The section title is false as I didn't remove the content in question. This section contains a list by GalantFan of either misleading or blatantly false accusations regarding me. They were even warned by Bonadea to "make very sure that you comment only on content and make no comments on your fellow editors". They continue to attack me and throw out false accusations about me. This is completely unacceptable.GreenCows (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

wow, just wow GalantFan (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "Wow", indeed. "Wow" that you posted about user behavior on an article talk page, where it has no business being. Here on AN/I is where user behavioral problems are discussed -- such as yours, for instance. It's good that you removed your comments about GreenCows from the article talk page, because if you hadn't, I'm pretty sure a proposal for sanctions against you would have been posted here. If you keep on your crusade against GC, then I'm certain that such a proposal will be posted here which will ask for you to be blocked in order to stop ongoing disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&diff=1050273531&oldid=1050272293 GalantFan (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sanctions are definitely needed now to stop their disruptive behaviour. They have been given so many chances but they're continuing and have refused to listen and have taken almost zero account for their own disruptive behaviour. Their above posting a single diff of mine, without context, in response to you is a clear continuation of their crusade against me, as are their latest comments on the talk page at the Second Battle of Fallujah about "APPROVED WIKI CONTENT", which are clearly indirectly aimed at me and the other editors involved. They even posted on Bonadea's talk about the content of the article. Furthermore, they have also since deleted these discussions at Mexican-American War, incorrectly claiming to be archiving old discussions. This discussion between me, GalantFan, and CaptainEek was opened only two weeks ago and contains other instances of GalantFan's disruptive editing and is related to my first dispute with them. Curiously they didn't delete other older inactive discussions or the other section where they had copy pasted masses of text from another article. GreenCows (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've de-file-linked GalantFan's link to a gore image on Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah. I will AGF that he didn't intend to make the image so in-your-face (easy mistake with file link syntax), but the associated comment solidifies my impression that he's treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I've blocked for one week for disruptive editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  So, GalantFan embedded the gore image on his Talk page (after spending quite some time ranting about how unfair the block is), has explicitly refused to submit an unblock request, and tried to use a failed proposal from 2005 to argue he should be allow to embed the gore pic on his Talk page, after Tamzin changed it to a link.

  At this point, I don't think he's capable of understanding our policies & abiding by them, and he's just not here to edit collaboratively. I'd suggest upping his block to indef & removing talk page access, because we're just going to be right back here in a week with a full community-ban proposal when he starts editing again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I did just remove TPA for the continued battleground antics, but held off on the indef. For now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• I am obviously involved here, but I do want to say that I think GalantFan has the capability to be a positively productive editor here. Their behavior in this instance toward GreenCows has been far from ideal, and their -- I guess -- idealism has led them into serious battleground behavior, but if they can keep that under control, I think they can be a net asset. I would urge GalantFan to take a deep breath, and use their enforced WikiBreak to read some of the advice they've been given and take it seriously to change their attitude and way of working. Editors whose total focus is on aggressively WP:Righting great wrongs rarely do well here, but those that commit to working collaboratively and collegially can do a lot of good without receiving the blowback that comes with battleground behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Forza bruta

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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 48 hours by Cullen328 Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Forza bruta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above contributor has just posted this on my talk page: Stop your propaganda for communist dictators. You remove word "dictator" for communist criminals: Castro and Lenin were criminals. Forza bruta (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) [18] This is in response to me reverting several of their posts, which consisted of removing the words 'dictator' and 'dictatorship' from the article on Fransesco Franco [19], and of adding it to articles on Vladimir Lenin [20] and Fidel Castro. [21] No attempt to justify the edits, no consideration of the broader context, just addition or removal of a few words. Nothing substantive as an edit summary. Just raw assertion regarding who is or isn't a 'dictator'. In articles that all discuss the nuances of such questions in considerably more detail.

I note that this is seems to be something of a pattern for Forza bruta, who back in September started a thread on WP:ANI [22] regarding a dispute over whether Josip Broz Tito should be described as a 'dictator' - a dispute where Forza bruta characterised another contributor as a 'stalker' and a 'hypocrite'. And again, showing what appears to be some sort of point-scoring or retaliation involving the removal of the term 'dictator' from an article on Mussolini. [23] It seems to me that Forza bruta regards Wikipedia as some sort of arena for playground political article-tagging games, rather than an (attempted) encyclopaedia, and given their refusal to engage in substantive debate on such matters, it might well prove wise to consider topic-banning Forza bruta from articles concerning real or alleged dictators, real or alleged dictatorships , and probably politics of the last hundred years or so in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Dictator is a commonly abused subjective label that should never be used in wikivoice, as established with the precedent for removing several incarnations of List of dictators and Category:Dictators. Based on this precedent, Forza bruta's labeling of certain heads of state as dictators is already problematic in itself, but their refusal to label Francisco Franco as a dictator suggests an ideological slant as well. Though, Franco's article shouldn't use the term dictator in wikivoice, as it currently does 10 times for Franco and 6 times for other governments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument, though there are other perspectives on the matter. It has certainly been argued that (at least in his early years in power) Franco was a 'dictator' in formal legalistic terms, in a way that neither Stalin or even Hitler were, making it more than a 'subjective label'. That's a discussion for article talk pages though, and my objection to Forza bruta is based around an apparent refusal to use such things, or to admit the possibility that other people's opinions may be based on more subtle matters than their position on a political spectrum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

- You called him a dictator, can't you be polite!? - I was being polite, that's why I added the "tator"! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I made ANI because an user labeled me as "hypocrite". Regarding word "dictator" I request neutral POV in related introductions of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There are better ways to 'request neutral POV' than by accusing people of making 'propaganda for communist dictators'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: None of the users in this thread are indefinitely blocked; Forza bruta received only a 2-day block that is now expired. In the meantime, I just received a statement by Forza at User_talk:LaundryPizza03#Dictator, complaining about other users who use the term dictator selectively:

I like your comment in page of ANI: the political abuse of label "dictator" by many editors is a flag of ideological slant by many accounts and this is huge problem regarding neutral version of articles about historical personages. I made several actions or edits in articles and related talk pages versus this kind of editors who have a blatant ideological slant regarding communist dictators: they remove sistematically label "dictator" near names of communist personages but they put same label "dictator" near names of fascist personages in maniacal manner! From this problematic situation I started several discussions with various users but I just want to find a friendly agreement with them, but it is a complicated operation via ANI for request of block versus my account for alleged accusations regarding silly facts.
— User:Forza bruta 23:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies; I probably read the block notice too superficially. Will amend note above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 7 December 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.

TPA revocation

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.

---

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked by Seddon Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

I need an administrator to please revoke this user's TPA; continuous personal attacks and the like. Thank you. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. It's not unreasonable that a blocked IP would vent a little and would respond to repeated comments made at their talk. Let's see if there is a problem if they are left alone. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've TPA'd but generally I'd advise you in these situations to avoid continued engagement as its unlikely to lead to deescalation. Seddon ^talk 02:21, 7 December 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:Svinnnn10

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.

---

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked as VOA by Bbb23 Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See their contributions  // Timothy :: talk  20:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Next time, take this to WP:AIV where summary reports are appropriate. I've indeffed the user as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 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 User: 5.197.243.213

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.

---

Resolved

 – IP editor blocked 31 hours, edit summary revdel'ed and sock blocked Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

User:5.197.243.213 referring to editors as 'Ultra nationalist wankers' [[24]] (while deleting properly sourced content), and then came to my talk page to accuse me of 'Returning edits of fascists.' [[25]], after being informed of WP:AGF. Not acceptable! JeffUK (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours, and revdel'd that edit summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, bad words are not accepted in Wikipedia because people from all ages see this. We all know that this isn't the next time he will do this since Jeff did not do anything rather than help. If with 2 incidents you are getting a ban, and getting political because you are from Baku that is a dictatorship we have some suspicions to believe that you not are an individual, but more as an organization. You were also editing the Armenian-Azerbaijani war article with the other account, and that is a delicate subject since you are Azerbaijani. I don't want to offend anybody, but I just want to tell you what I discovered, and the next time you offend or make disruptive editing, you will be permanently banned. If you are not an organization please continue to edit responsably.

I hope this helps, William Specter. Williamspecter (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The above account was created 58 minutes ago, and this is the only edit they've made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why William's edit here needs to be hidden. I've indeffed the accoount.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 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 users in iPhone SE (3rd generation) article

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

---

2607:FEA8:3D41:D700:AD6B:EE18:E346:101E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2607:FEA8:3D41:D700:B978:15F7:E9DC:CF5A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Iphone8fan (talk · contribs)

These users vandalized in iPhone SE (3rd generation) article and changed wrong name without reason regularly. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] —Hajoon0102 💬 15:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a couple of days. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, first of all we have to discuss if the name is correct. Secondly, a lot of people say different names for the iphone SE so in my opinion it is helpfull to discuss with the user

I hope it helps, Mr. Willaim 2806:267:148A:1517:753F:44CA:F0D9:F0DD (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be changing the name to "iPhone 8", which is very obviously a different device to the iPhone SE 3rd Generation. There is nothing to discuss here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 22:01, 7 December 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.

Vandal IP

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

---

Unregistered IP 114.122.138.83 is engaged in vandalism and harassing of genuine editors ([34], [35], [36]). MurrayGreshler (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please note that this edit, a comment by you on the IP's user talk page, is an uncivil personal attack on another editor, whether or not an IP. Whether or not the warning placed on your Talk page by the IP was constructive or valid, you are not permitted to address the IP in this fashion. General Ization ^Talk 04:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The IP in question has been described as "This is a long-term troll that indiscriminately reverts edits" by @User:Someone who's wrong on the internet. That's what this IP is. I don't take kindly to nor do I have time for harassment. If "WTF" and "jerk" are uncivil, then I apologize -- not to the IP but to WP. Fortunately, I was being restrained. MurrayGreshler (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edit on the IP's talk page was made a full 3 minutes before the comment by another editor on your Talk page about the IP being "a long-term troll". That being said, it is unlikely that the IP singled you out for harassment based on their other edits. I can appreciate your annoyance, but I'd encourage you to avoid making this kind of comment even when annoyed. General Ization ^Talk 05:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being singled out. The other editor confirmed that. I just felt the IP's actions should be sanctioned. I mean it is disconcerting to be abruptly accused of something then have to recheck your edits when you know you didn't intentionally do anything wrong. And almost intolerable to come from an unregistered IP. MurrayGreshler (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI I saw the WP:AIV report and blocked the IP as they were making apparently bad-faith edits including spurious warnings on other user's pages, before seeing this ANI report. I agree that the message on the IP's talk page was uncalled for and believe that whether the edits are from an IP or a registered account shouldn't make a big difference. -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I apologize for using terms like "WTF" (one of which I changed to "WTH") and "jerk". I would not wish to do anything that would reflect poorly on either WP or myself. I lost my cool. First time I ever used borderline bad words. It won't happen again. MurrayGreshler (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. I did not mean to direct my comment at you and sorry for sounding so. I was just explaining my block rationale while acknowledging the above discussion, and in particular documenting that unregistered IP vs registered user did not factor into the decision. Thank you for reporting. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You might want to consider a longer block or an open proxy check per this. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@MurrayGreshler: The IP was a derp vandal, randomly reverts and warns for no reason. I agree that this is a very nasty sort of vandalism. I understand why you lost your cool. It's like having a group of people roaming through your neighbourhood smashing windows at random, and they happen to arbitrarily choose one of yours. From experience, it feels targeted (even if subconsciously), but it's just random senseless vandalism.

They may return to your talkpage, as they seem to like to go after editors who they've already interacted with. If so, just revert them (no need to warn them) and send them to AIV and explain that it's an LTA who reverts and warns at random. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001 -- thanks, again. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

MurrayGreshler - As General Ization stated above, you don't want to be making comments or messages toward anyone like this. :-) Think of it this way: Let's say that the IP user is 100% trying to be a troll and cause frustration and stress upon other users on Wikipedia. By leaving the message that you did, you just gave them the "food" that they desparately crave and you just showed them that what they're doing is working. It only encourages them to continue at it. Remember: Don't feed the trolls. ;-)

On a serious note, I'm happy to see that you realized your mistake, admitted to it and owned up to it, that you understand, and that you committed to improving how you handle difficult situations like this moving forward. Honestly, I view you much more favorably as a Wikipedian for your responses here than unfavorably for the message you left - no joke! It takes a lot for someone to recognize their mistakes, own up to them publicly like you did, and use it as an opportunity to improve. You'd be surprised as to how many users on here absolutlely cannot and will not simply admit to being in the wrong with something, apologize, and promise to do better (actually following through is another matter lol). They instead resort to blaming others, pointing fingers, and insisting that they're not at fault - even when the evidence shows completely otherwise and when 15 other editors are trying to tell them so. It speaks highly of your character when I see how you reacted above, and I just wanted to commend you greatly for this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

New harassment

@General Ization ^Talk

@Someone who's wrong on the internet

@SpuriousQ

OK. NOW, I AM Being Singled Out For Harassment by above-referenced IP now calling itself Dutch Seelen ([37]) undoing my edits without explanation. I am working by phone and cannot just revert so can someone block this creature indefinitely and rollback? Also, obviously related IP 114.122.138.61 is also reverting my edits without explanation ([38]), which I have to manually re-revert as I am working by phone. This IP reverted 4 edits without explanation. Coincidentally, @FMSky, who had left me a message taking great umbrage at an edit I had made to one bio (changing Irish to Anglo-Irish), just happened to come by immediately after the IP vandalism in three out of the four instances (ignoring the vandalism but making further edits). MurrayGreshler (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The account is six years old, which makes this rather strange; I guess the account has been compromised and have blocked it from editing. Please do not refer to other editors, including vandals, as "creature"s in this way though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

IP Range 114.122.13 -.-- further vandalism -- ROLLBACK requested

• @ToBeFree
• @General Ization ^Talk
• @Someone who's wrong on the internet
• @SpuriousQ

Subsequent to above, reverts of my edits by vandal IP from range 114.122.13-.-- ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43]).

Thanks. MurrayGreshler (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Massrollbacked. Blocked 114.122.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) 3 days. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see Widr hit the /18 for 6 months just as I hit the /19. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks, again, @Tamzin, but will 72 hours be enough? What if IP continues? MurrayGreshler (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

    Well in general the answer would be "Then we block it again", but in this case, Widr's 6-month block supersedes the 3-day one. (With CIDR ranges, smaller number means bigger range. So a /19 is half of an /18.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  ​Btw, this gave me the chance to test out my fork of massrollback, which has the option to mark all reverted edits and reverts thereof as bot edits (thereby excluding them from most watchlists and minimizing the effects of harassment like this). Worked great! Consider this a shameless plug. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE:

*@ToBeFree

*@Someone who's wrong on the internet

*@Tamzin

Vandal is baaacck!!!!! Now using the username Hyacintha Dabney (see [44]). Please do ROLLBACK! Thanks. Sockpuppet has already been blocked indefinitely at AIV but it likely has more old dormant accounts so maybe all accounts created up to six years ago that are inactive/have been inactive until this week should be closed. The vandal wants the rangeblock lifted (see link below after "wannabe") so they may not have an indefinite supply of old dormant accounts. (I feel just like Avery Ryan on CSI: Cyber, LOL!) Also, vandal is a wannabe extortionist. MurrayGreshler (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

MurrayGreshler - I've blocked the account, but can you provide evidence that this is a sock puppet or that they're evading the rangeblock made above? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The latest incarnation (Hyacintha Dabney) was already blocked at ANI. All that's needed is for ROLLBACK. I don't know how but if someone wants to show me, I am willing to try to learn. The evidence of vandalism starts at [45]. Also, please read this. Do you think two separate vandals are following me? MurrayGreshler (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No need to draw attention to trolls. Just revert, report to AIV and be done with it. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That is part of the problem. I edit by phone and can't revert hence my need for ROLLBACK. Even if I could, it would pbly lead to tit for tat. Besides, this particular vandal with its blatantly extortionate demands and six year old dormant accounts is NOT your garden variety vandal that can be so easily dispensed with, evidently. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, certainly not if you keep providing entertainment value. Also I don't know what "I edit by phone and can't revert" is supposed to mean, I sometimes edit on my phone and it's certainly possible to revert -- maybe you should seek assistance at WP:TEAHOUSE or something. JBL (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@JBL. Thanks for the suggestion. MurrayGreshler (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you need help reverting, see Help:Reverting. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Someone who's wrong on the internet, I will consult Reverting. MurrayGreshler (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Someone who's wrong on the internet, working like a charm. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:05, 7 December 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:Dreamers111

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.

---

• Dreamers111 (talk · contribs)

My issue at hand is this user keeps removing a featuring artist on the article Dreamers. Even though, the artist is credited as a collaborator with the main artist, they don't want the featuring artist mentioned for whatever reason. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the official FIFA official website, this song is not a featured song. Read the article. In the first sentence of the article, it is a solo song sung by Jungkook and states that he collaborates with a Qatar singer just for the performance.

Here's what the official article says:

1.Dreamers, an inspirational song by Jung Kook of 21st century pop icons BTS, today becomes the latest FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ Official Soundtrack release, stoking excitement for the big kick-off.

2.Jung Kook, a member of 21st century pop icons BTS, is behind Dreamers, the new song released to mark the start of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

3.The superstar will be joined by Qatari singer Fahad Al-Kubaisi for a performance of the song during the tournament’s Opening Ceremony on Sunday 20 November

refer to : https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/articles/bts-jung-kooks-dreamers-unveiled-to-celebrate-the-start-of-fifa-world-cup-2022

and refer to the official streaming services link :me2.kr/nha1z

Don't ruin song credit. Dreamers111 (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

+ You can check the song title and singer and song credit at the following streaming service site, etc.

<Dreamers [Music from the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Official Soundtrack] - Jung Kook.>

1. spotify link : https://open.spotify.com/track/1RDvyOk4WtPCtoqciJwVn8

2. apple music link : https://music.apple.com/kr/album/dreamers-music-from-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022/1655441867?i=1655441868&at=1l3vpUI&ct=LFV_953880ce7288ba5bca3c34cbf6442033&itsct=catchall_p3&itscg=30440&ls=1

3. itunes store link : https://music.apple.com/kr/album/dreamers-music-from-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022/1655441867?i=1655441868

4. melon link: https://www.melon.com/album/detail.htm?albumId=11106209

5. genie link : https://www.genie.co.kr/detail/albumInfo?axnm=83196201

6. vibe link: https://vibe.naver.com/album/8349954

etc. Dreamers111 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

OP, you didn’t even try discussing this on the talk page. Instead you just templated this user and came to ANI? Totally inappropriate. Dreamers is trying to discuss the issue. Go to the talk page. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:5050:37C:A2A6:B7E5 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Discuss it on the talk page according to Dispute resolution. It doesn't belong here. ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 5 December 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.

Persistent editing against consensus

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.

---

124.246.107.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP user is attempting to place an external link on Andrew Anglin to Anglin's twitter account. This has been opposed by multiple editors for a number of reasons, including WP:NOSOCIAL.[46]

This same edit was attempted by similar IP 124.246.97.160, who was blocked for edit warring over this edit [47] Previously 124.246.93.199 was attempting a similar external link edit to place a link to the daily stormer website, which is in the blocked sites list.

It would appear that this is the same user, and that they are WP:NOTHERE. ButlerBlog (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My position is that the Anglin twitter account link fulfills the two criteria stated under "official page" section in wiki external links page and is thus not subjected to the "no social media" rule.

Official links

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links

Anglin isn't notable for posting on Twitter. It's nothing but a link to social media, adding precisely nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The linked content primarily covers the area

As long as the content on Anglin twitter page primarily covers the area in which Anglin is famous for, that should be good enough. I feel that you are distorting the criteria. You are saying that the account ITSELF must be notable. I don't think such an interpretation is correct. Even if the account is completely unknown to anyone in this world, but it contains info on which the subject is famous for, that fulfills the criteria. The issue here is the CONTENT of the account and NOT whether the ACCOUNT is notable or not. Your claim that the account adds "precisely nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the subject." This also appears to be totally at odds with the "official links" statement that "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."

Your agurments completely goes against the statements and the spirit of the "official links" section. It is total distortion and fraudulent argument.124.246.107.159 (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide links to neo-Nazi conspiracy-theorist Twitter accounts. Anyone wanting encyclopaedic information on Anglin is unlikely to get it from him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

So you are admitting that your arguments are invalid and thus your objections cannot be sustained and my arguments that Anglin account is indeed exempted from the "no social media rule"?124.246.107.159 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not 'admitting' anything. Learn to read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If no one else has any objections, I am restoring the Anglin account to his wiki page.124.246.107.159 (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't his Wiki page, it is ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

IP user, you have not even tried to get a consensus on the article talk page in favour of including the link. That's where you need to discuss the article content. Do not edit war to restore it in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My arguments for adding the link is on the Anglin edit history page itself. I also tried to get consensus on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Butlerblog talkpage.124.246.107.159 (talk) He made no coherent replies to my questions and suddenly started a conflict posting here and I was forced to come here and defend the edit. 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been reverted by multiple people. Consensus is against you. Discuss on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

They reverted me, yes that is true. But none of the people who reverted me could make any sort of argument against my claim that the link is valid under "official links" rules and is exempted from the "no social media" rule. They just revert at will with no effort to rebut my arguments. 124.246.107.159 (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

FTR, you don't get consensus by discussing things on a user's talk page. You need(ed) to discuss it on the article's talk page. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

When our article Andrew Anglin describes this person as a neo-Nazi, we are being far too kind. Anglin is an overt and proud Nazi who advocates for the extermination of all Jews, including me, my wife, our sons and my beautiful five year old granddaughter. He is a overtly vehement racist and sexist who advocates for the destruction of democracy and for an authoritarian dictatorship. His publication The Daily Stormer emulates the crudest and most disgusting Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer. The fact that this criminal is even on Twitter is sadly illuminating. It would be crazy of us to link to the Twitter feed of an overt advocate of mass murder. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure about Anglin's past deeds. I only began aware of the guy for a few weeks. My question is whether the Anglin account is valid or not valid, does it violate any wiki rules or not? If there are no legitimate wiki rules violations, the link should be restored. Otherwise what are the wiki rules for?124.246.107.159 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Past deeds? What utter bullshit. I think this is industrial strength trolling when most editors are asleep. WP:NONAZIS Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It would beg the question of "Why do you give a damn about this article if you don't know anything about the subject?" if we wanted to feed the trolls any further. Ravenswing 11:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) I note that you have posted nothing on the article talk page. Without consensus there the link should not be included, per WP:NOCON. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple people have removed the content so consensus is for the article not to include that information. At this point the only path to get it included would be to raise a WP:RFC on the Talk page. P.S. I do not believe that it would add to the article and if such a RfC is raised then I would !vote against including it. Gusfriend (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Would the article fall under post 1992 DS sanctions? I was considering adding the notice to the talk page but wasn't sure. Gusfriend (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My final words: no consensus, no link. I'm off to listen to the Dead Kennedys... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of who is right, the IP is definitely edit warring. To encourage them to follow the advice above to discuss on talk, I have semi-protected the article for three days. Let me know if further is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Let's see what happens, but the IP disruption goes back to at least September. It's pretty consistently ongoing and all the IPs involved appear to be the same SPA editor, so I would guess that something longer will be needed at some point, especially since there doesn't seem to be any significant amount of productive IP activity on the article. I'd actually suggest perhaps 3 months of semi-protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I appreciate the semi-protection as I believe that is what is needed here, but I would agree with BMK that a longer term may be necessary. I had previously requested page protection via WP:RPP, and in good faith the responding administrator noted that the 2 IPs involved at that time were already blocked. However, those were short term blocks for 3RR violations, and this new different IP is evidently the same user. All three show a trend to SPA. Regardless, it has been and continues to be on my watchlist (and I believe it is in BMK's as well), so ultimately not much is going to slip by. I'm just looking to be preemptive based on the recent history. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure more will be needed. Ping me when that occurs and more will happen although I might be slow. I'm getting jaded and would be inclined to block IPs or new accounts like this for six months minimum but a ridiculous (IMHO) amount of AGF is the norm. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully, it won't come to that. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:38, 6 December 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:LNPH

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.

---

Requesting block of User:LNPH as WP:NOTHERE. I warned: [48] them about SOAPBOXING: [49] on Talk:Paris Peace Accords, but they ignored my warning and have continued to SOAPBOX there: [50] and [51]. In addition has made POV pushing unreffed edits here: [52] and SOAPBOXing on the Talk Page here: [53] Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 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.

Baháʼu'lláh

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.

---

Many users keep removing the image of Baháʼu'lláh from the infobox in his article above in question and use the claim that consenus is against it. This has recently been done by User:Cuñado and User:Smkolins. As you can see from [54] and [55].

However looking at Talk:Baháʼu'lláh, the only real complaint users seem to have is that it offends their religious feelings about not showing it to non-Bahais. This is clear censorship (removal isn't the only form of censorship, although they did remove another image of the subject added by me to the article). And also imposition of a religion's rules on Wikipedia also violates it no matter how much consensus there is. Many users have also called for direct removal of the image on the talk page.

A comparable situation is when Wikipedia rejected any attempts to remove images of Muhammad. Although it wasn't being asked to be demoted like for Baháʼu'lláh.

However the motive of those editing at Baháʼu'lláh too is imposing one's religious rules. The users also removed another image. Both the images are clearly real and have been acknowledged by the Universal House of Justice [56].

I request the admins to intervene. Since this is a issue about religious sentiments dictating editing of people, I believe admins need to be asked. People shouldn't get to impose anything on Wikipedia at all over their religious feelings. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally support adding an FAQ section to the article's talk page explaining why we show an image of him, as is the case for Talk:Muhammad. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Also MOS:LEADIMAGE clearly states that the lead image must give visual confirmation and must be an appropriate representation. A house with some architecture that doesn't look distinct cannot be not that. Only obscene or vulgar images are prohobited as offensive per MOS:OMIMG. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The actions to return to the consensus version, because the picture is itself a topic of discussion, was not related to the talk pages observed of many people put complaints. In fact many of us have put the picture *back* when someone deleted it or otherwise tweaked it - to maintain the consensus version. This has a long history, so reading recent talk pages will not be illuminating, nor even the collection of talk histories. But if you go through it you will see contributors supporting the concensus and against the wishes of many and actively telling them to stop that editing. Smkolins (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A biography of a religious leader that does not include a photo of the man in the lead and does not give his birth name in the lead, and refers to the person only by his honorific is more of a religious tract than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. A religious group's taboos should have zero impact on the content of a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody knows him by his given name. There are definitely improvements to neutrality needed in the article but that is not one of them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

His given name is basic encyclopedic information that should not be downplayed to elevate his honorific. That is a violation of the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The first section of the article is "Name, title, and pronunciation" and describes in great detail his given name and why Baha'u'llah came to be the name for which he is exclusively now known. If your complaint is that the given name is not in the first sentence, that was an attempt to declutter. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's also the first thing in the infobox. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Roman Reigns Fanboy's characterization of the situation. A lengthy debate years ago (including admins) settled on leaving the photo in the section dedicated to it and not at the top of the article. It is not censorship (it is still in the article), and it would be strange to call it censorship because it is not an offensive image, it is merely preference for Baha'is to avoid viewing it outside of special occasions. Having the image in the body of the article does assist with avoiding the image if someone wants to avoid it, but also the practice of avoiding it is noteworthy enough to get its own section in the article, and it's helpful to have the image next to the text talking about it. While an analogy to the images of Muhammad may come to mind, this is entirely different. There is no rule on Wikipedia saying that a photograph has to go at the top of a biography. WP:LEADIMAGE also says, "Lead images are not required" and "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."

User:Roman Reigns Fanboy up to now has not used the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee concluded Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Including a photographic portrait of a person (when freely available) is standard operating procedure across this encyclopedia, right? Where is the "shock value" in putting a photo of the person in the lead? The only people who could be shocked are those trying to impose the taboos of this religious group on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado Can you link to this "lengthy debate years ago (including admins)" which "settled on leaving the photo in the section dedicated to it and not at the top of the article", please, because otherwise the useful encyclopedic image needs to go back in the infobox. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cuñado "it is merely preference for Baha'is to avoid viewing it outside of special occasions." This seems like an attempt to compromise the encyclopedia's mission to placate certain religious sensitivities that have no effect here. What religions like/don't like shouldn't have any effect on how we present an encyclopedic article IMO. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This just seems like content dispute? I mean I have thoughts on whether and how the image should be included, but aren't we at the wrong place to have this discussion? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen328's take on the situation, but agree that this is a content dispute that doesn't really belong on ANI. Ravenswing 00:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that the discussion goes a bit beyond a simple content dispute. Is it proper for editors who are adherents of the Baháʼí Faith to create a local talk page consensus that is clearly at odds with project-wide consensus? I do not think that the article talk page where the consensus errors have been made is the best place to evaluate the validity of that claimed consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If that's where we are at, then I might as well say my piece. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't being violated here. There was a reasonable compromise to make the editorial decision to put the image in a place where it can be properly discussed in context, and that is completely appropriate for a local talk page to reach consensus on. MOS:IMAGELEAD allows for such compromises. I've supported similar measures to this on BLPs before (where I've opposed putting a pre-transition photo of a transgender person in the lead but reluctantly allowed it in the body of an article), and I don't see this controversy as meaningfully different in the grand scheme of things. It's just a content dispute at the end of the day, but no one has even tried the talk page yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

MJL, I do not know how on God's green earth a discussion about a pre-transition photo of a transgender person can be used as justification to keep a photo of a religious figure out of the lead of this biography. In my view, it is unwarranted capitulation to the taboos of a religious sect, and therefore a clear-cut violation of the Neutral point of view. As for talk page discussion, we are told by the followers of this religion that there is extensive discussion in the article talk page archives that are too intricate and too detailed for mere mortals to understand. I reject that type of obfuscation. Where are the diffs that establish this so-called consensus? Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I suggest you read the policy: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." "Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic." Yes this is censorship where the only reason to keep out an image of the infobox is religious sentiments.

And using a transgender person's pre-transition image as an example to justify it is really strange to say the least. We don't just keep out the image because it "offends them", it's also a mark of bigotry to reject a person's identity. No such thing is being done here. I'm not seeing any real reason to keep the Baháʼu'lláh image out of the infobox. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo for the decades-old consensus being referred to (again, this is an issue that can be solved by just starting a new discussion on the talk page). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus in that section User:MJL beyond one user saying non-believers shouldn't be allowed to look upon the image (something that we should not capitulate to). Another user states that if someone deleted the image then it shouldn't be restored. How is this anything similar to what Cuñazo said? And regardless we cannot let Wikipedia be run by any group's feelings. No consensus needs to be had on this issue. Since the Arbitration Committee has already decided a local consensus cannot overrule a global one. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

MJL, I do not see any legitimate consensus there. That is a 57 section talk page archive that consists mostly of followers of the Baháʼí Faith complaining that they do not like the photo because it violates their religious taboos. What does all of that have to do with Wikipedia's core content policies like the Neutral point of view? Are you arguing that capitulation to religious taboos is somehow neutral? I certainly don't accept that argument. Am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also the matter that the archived "Photo" section MJL and the people on the article used to claim consensus is just one person saying the image shouldn't be shown to Non-Bahais over religious sentiments. A user before him said if the image was removed no one should restore it, but they do not say anything about personally supporting or opposing keeping the image out. This isn't even a real consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy and Cullen328: Look, I just don't see a compelling reason to include that photograph in the lead. That's just my opinion on the content dispute side of this based off my understanding of our policies (including MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE). I also don't see the point in placing that specific image there when it's already being used and discussed further down the article in its own dedicated section.
The Photo subpage was summarizing a vote that happened in 2005 (link). That's why I referred to it as decades-old. It wasn't just Baháʼí users who participated, though (if Geni is Baháʼí, then that's news to me). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a highly inappropriate comment with no legitimate reasoning. The lead image is used to represent a person and give visual aid. That is what MOS:LEADIMAGE is about. The image of Baháʼu'lláh is unique. A house that looks like any modern house won't be immediately recognized by nearly anyone unless you write it out that it's his shrine.

As for "shock value", I do not see the shock value in the image other than some people trying to impose their religious views. Most people won't bother. The same MOS:SHOCKVALUE says images with shock value are sometimes unavoidable. Not everyone follows Bahai rules. And I don't see how a picture of some person is supposed to cause shock to any rational mind.

You linked another section titled "Photo" earlier which had no consenus. The option of demoting it received votes for sure on another section called "Vote".

But all the admins except one named Geni who did not become an admin until December 2021 [57] on that vote supported the third option of leaving the image in the upper corner. There are 9 votes to keep it as it is and 8 to demote it in the article. So I don't see what problem you have with it other than it hurts religious sentiments.

I'm sorry but this censorship cannot be allowed because you or anyone else doesn't like it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

MJL, how can SHOCKVALUE possibly apply to a routine photo of a man in the 19th century? . There is no gore, there is no nudity and there is no sexual activity. There is literally nothing controversial about the photo to any rational person. It is a simple photo of a man. The only people who could possibly be shocked are those caught up in this religious groups' idiosyncratic taboos. Why should we cater to them? Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Vote" section he linked is also in favour of keeping the image in the upper corner than demoting it by 9-8. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I can also see that his image does not exist in the article Baháʼí Faith despite the fact that his son's image is there. He's literally the founder of this religion; why is his image not there? Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I'm not a guy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Cullen on this one--or more specifically, with the clear community consensus and policies he alludes to: we unambiguously have established community principles that we do not tailor factual content purely to cater to groups with particular philosophical or theological sensitivities--no matter how sincerely held, and no matter the exact nature of the particular belief, or how benign its adherents hold it to be. Once we start down that road, the entire enterprise of attempting to present neutral, open, and accurate content (and context in particular), becomes deeply damaged. And yes, absolutely there are principles of established editorial norms which local consensus cannot abrogate: that too is long-established community consensus. And I see enough here about potential concerns with gatekeeping to established this as more than a mere content issue and justify this staying on ANI for at least the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: There's nothing idiosyncratic about the beliefs of a religious minority numbering 5–8 million adherents. It's obviously not just a routine photograph. The only reason we have access to it is because a a Christian missionary wrote an anti-Baháʼí screed trying to discredit its foundations (that characterization is according to an actual review of the book published by the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society lest you think I am being dramatic). So yeah, it may be a bit shocking for members of this faith. Either way, I've said my piece here and do not want to talk about this further. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: MOS:SHOCKVALUE does not cover everything you might get offended or shocked by. The idea of what images can be considered offensive is covered in MOS:OMIMG (MOS:SHOCKVALUE explicitly redirects to that policy). You are also misleading by omitting that image that is the lead isn't from a Christian missionary who wrote an anti-Bahai creed. It's actually from the Baháʼí World Centre itself. [58]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In case of many religious figures or even other people before photography was invented, it makes sense to not use a portrait or painting as a lead image when there is no accepted position on how that person actually looked and no one is sure of whether it's even accurate to how they were. But that is clearly not the case here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just noting that the 2005 coverage of the debate has already been posted. To me, as I came in mostly after and or missed the debate, this was a consensus and i supported it by way of restoring the picture when others deleted it outright from the page and the comparative few times people wanted it at the top. Now I'm being accused of deleting the picture when i did not. Hyperbole seems to be winning the day. There is a failing standard of civility in here as there has been in the past. People can take great license to do things with they think they are right that they would not otherwise. I'm just trying to support real, honest, consensus, and the policies of Wikipedia, even if that changes. To me this has nothing to do with religious views. Smkolins (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Smkolins, if "consensus" rejects the inclusion of that image (while using multiple weak arguments that can be found elsewhere), then that consensus can be ignored. Consensus that somehow developed on a talk page many years ago does not override WP:NOTCENSORED. If you visit the article Muhammad, you can clearly see potentially objectionable material; that is how Wikipedia normally operates, we don't remove material because of religious reasons. (I'm not saying you oppose WP:NOTCENSORED.) As for Talk:Baháʼu'lláh, you are welcome to voice your opinion in the latest section on that talk page. Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • To present my views clearly, consensus is not required to include that image. WP:NOTCENSORED exists for a reason and shifting that image to a different part of the article is a textbook example of censoring articles for religious reasons. Removing that image is simply disruptive editing. Those removing the image have had policy explained to them numerous times above and are therefore sufficiently informed. (Please note I am not referring to you specifically, Smkolins; I'm speaking generally.) Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As i clearly stated above, I restored the picture. Review the history of the article looking for instances of the picture being deleted and you will see myself and Cuñado and others in other periods systematically restoring the picture and acting in good faith to what the avowed experience was as we entered into working in wikipedia and now more than 15 years. All this talk of censorship, deleting the picture, and religious interference is ignoring the point that we ourselves constantly put the picture back and have been using good reliable sources as they have been produced and contributed responsibly. That needs to be well appreciated in this discourse. Smkolins (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw MOS:IMAGEQUALITY clearly states "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." I don't see any argument for keeping the image out. Even the consensus some people keep referring to from 15 years ago was in favour of leaving the image in the upper corner, not demoting it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That is an instruction to not include certain types of images (those with other people), obviously not an insistence that it is *necessary* to include an image. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The IP is right. Case in point, see the article for Muhammad.
Either way, I think I've said enough. If people here want to go on this crusade to include this image, I've already made my objections known. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Mohammed comparison is invalid because nobody has any idea what he actually looked like, while in this case, we have a photo that shows quite clearly what Baháʼu'lláh looked like. "Crusade" is an inappropriate term with highly charged connotations. Yes, it is clear that you object, MJL, but your objections are not based on Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or long-established best practices. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, you've placed this comment in a subthread so that it appears that you are defending the (ridiculous) idea that MOS:IMAGEQUALITY mandates including a picture under certain circumstances, when in fact it proscribes including pictures under certain (different) circumstances. However one feels about other arguments in favor or against the picture, I think it would be good to clearly reject the particular bad argument offered at the beginning of this subthread. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to MJL, as can be seen by the fact that I pinged that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@100.36.106.199: The policy clealry states should. So I don't see what circumstances you talk about. The part about "not including other people" is how the lead image should look like when pasting someone's photo. It is how a biography is supposed to begin. Yes it mandates, that's what a manual of style does. Also @MJL: the reason there is no portrait of Muhammad used is because there's no commonly accepted depiction that is considered as his representation [59]. Your anaology is highly flawed. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also MOS:LEADELEMENTS explicitly says the lead image should be relevant. The same MOS:LEADIMAGE is linked regarding what images should be linked where. It's not just for "certain circumstances" unlike what your claiming. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And actually, the Mohammed analogy is flawed in at least two other respects. First off, it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF statement at best, not an a priori argument for whether Baháʼu'lláh comports with policy and community consensus. Second off and more germane--and here I am going to slightly part with your interpretation as well, Cullen--the Mohammad article probably should have a lead image as well, if it were a simple matter of following our guidelines: yes, we don't know for sure what the man may have looked like, but that doesn't stop us from using images on the articles for the vast majority of his contemporaries for which we have historical depictions.

But I can well imagine why we don't have an image on that article: it would be a source of literally un-ending edit wars and talk page disruption. And, put plainly, it is even possible such edit conflicts on this particular article could raise to the level of threatened violence. Having had only tangential experience with that article in the past, I can only speculate, but I expect that the lack of an image there comes down to a pragmatic call on the part of the local editorial cohort, and probably a little bit of bias resulting from the fact that the number of (good faith) Muslim editors there is probably higher than on most any other article on the project. Let me re-emphasize that that is just a guess, though.

Now, believe me, I don't like saying that it is probable that some of our editors have likely been intimidated (by knowledge of the possible implications of their actions) away from placing a historical image on any article, even if I can understand and possibly even support that choice in a particular case. Nor do I like the latent implication of that conclusion that Bahá’ís are, in some sense, thus being penalized for having less of a reputation for militant extremism at the fringes of their religious establishment, relative to another religious group in a similarly-situated editorial context. But I like the idea of a spread of the notion of having content on articles discussing spiritual topics curtailed to capitulate to religious censorship even less. So it's really a least-ugly choice situation. Or put otherwise, another day on Wikipedia. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Having read through this lengthy discussion, one thing appears clear: those arguing against the picture in the lead have no valid argument. For all the claims of some old "consensus", no such consensus has been shown (despite repeated requests). Furthermore, the argument advanced simply don't hold up. There is no shock value in this picture whatsoever. It would appear to it all boiling down to "it might hurt religious sensitivities". OK, but that's not a valid argument. Many articles here can hurt people's religious feelings, and that goes for all religions so no bias. We're not here to cater to religious censorship of articles. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• ^^^What Jeppiz said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Amendment: I rechecked the vote User:MJL linked and I accidentally excluded a vote by HaeB because after reading his oppose vote I thought they was opposing the whole thing about hiding the picture. However while the vote may be 9-9, it is still a tie and not a consensus to hide the image. So the option of demoting the picture to the bottom still didn't have a consensus in its favour and users are clearly picking and choosing what they like instead of following any actual consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:MJL has wrongly accused me of misgendering them again in the above comment. I was initially confused but soon realized their claims were wrong. Although I have edited the comment from earlier for correcting the number of votes I counted in the consensus, at no point did I misgender them in the above comment. I only called HaeB a "he" (I do that for anyone whose pronouns I don't know). I did call MJL as "he" earlier when I didn't know their gender, it's a force of habit as I call everyone whose gender I don't know as "he". It's not malevolent in any way. But regarding my latest reply above MJL is accusing me falsely of misgendering them again and made a sarcastic reply when I pointed it out [60]. They seem to be deliberately aggressive and rude. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: You should really start a new section about this. It's clearly a separate issue. (involved comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It concerns the same article and your behaviour on it. I don't see a need when it can attract the admins already involved here who can decide what to do. If you continue being more aggressive like you have been here too again [61], then I'd consider. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(uninvolved admin) the spat over misgendering seems like a non-issue. MJL's comments regarding it are well within the bounds of civility, and they acknowledged their error regarding the second alleged instance of misgendering. The belabored explanation regarding your use of "he" as a gender neutral pronoun is not covering you in glory; I would suggest you let this drop. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cover myself in glory though but explaining why I used it. And they did accuse me wrongly. I don't see how their comments where they explicitly make the sarcastic comment about checking in with Cullen328 [62] (a dead giveaway that they're mocking that I'll complain), and mocking me earlier with "You're right. You only misgendered me once." [63] is civility. If more admins feel against it, I'll drop it. But MJL is clearly being hostile. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 1 December 2022‎ (UTC)

No, it's because I know Cullen328 would've said the same thing as Rosguill. Just because I disagree with him in this thread's context doesn't mean I disrespect him or his opinions. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't predict someone's behaviour. And regardless that would make little sense regarding you making the statement smaller, which is a clear giveaway. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This line of discussion is clearly not productive. Yes, MJL erred in saying you misgendered them twice, and yes, I see no evidence that you did it even the first time in a malicious fashion (although you may want to rethink the practice of using "he" as your default on this project, imo), and yes MJL is being somewhat passive aggressive in how they acknowledged the mistake in the second instance. However, none of this rises anywhere near the level of something that is going to be considered actionable here, and in fact, I don't get the sense MJL is complaining in an obstructive, tendentious fashion. So this is all just muddying the waters on the actual editorial issues/behavioural complaints that might actually be of concern to this thread. And at this point, if you push it any further, you're going to clearly be perceived as the histrionic/unreasonable party here: I suggest you take the advice of un-inolved parties here and drop this matter unless MJL continues to engage upon it, which does not seem to be their intention if you're both on the same page about their preferred gender terms. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, it looks RRF was, if anything, mistergendering MJL. EEng 23:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Roman Reigns Fanboy: I passed RFA for the (first time) in 2004. What you are reading in the logs is me re-adding autopatrolled (it used to be automatic for admins). This needs to be settled on the article talk page. We're talking about initial events that are so old that they informed later policy. Something that old is very much eligible for re-opening unless perhaps it involves Gdańsk.©Geni (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Geni: There is already a consensus going on, on the talk page. The issue unfortunately didn't involve only content dispute, but dictating content solely over religious feelings. At least that's how I see it. Hence I complained. Even the consensus being cited is only a 9-9 tie. If involved admins decide it should be closed, then I have no problem. I'm not trying to endlessly argue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Roman Reigns Fanboy started the ANI post without ever using the article talk page. This thread is pointless at this point and should be closed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cuñado: I started this thread because the sole reason being used is religious sentiments. Sure not everyone opposing the picture may be Bahai, but they are solely doing it out of respecting the religion and the wishes of its followers. Nothing else. Complaining was appropriate and I do think the behaviour you and MJL have shown deserved banning. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You also refused to use the talk page and answer my concerns beyond saying on my page "it's not censorship" [64] after I contacted you to stop censoring [65]. All that was done beyond it by you and Smolkins was reverting. Had you actually tried a discussion, this would have been avoided and we would have taken this to talk page inevitably. I had asked you how it's not cesnorship after your comment [66], you refused to answer me anywhere. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado, I disagree that this thread is altogether pointless, and I think you should be able to see from the community response above that this is not general impression. Roman Reigns Fanboy didn't exactly fall all over himself exhausting every form of dispute resolution before bringing the matter here, but he did at least reach out to you an explain his position that the image's exclusion is contrary to policy (if not in the most open-minded terms), and I agree with him that your response, which was little more than "Nuh-uh, is not!" is unsatisfactory, so I can understand why he was inclined to feel that talk page engagement might just be met with stonewalling (though he still should have tried, imo). And this impression is further supported by the fact that every uninvolved editor who has looked at the discussions that took place on that talk page previously concerning this matter has reached the conclusion that the assertion of a "consensus" is a false one.

All of that said... Is there some reason why neither side here has attempted to resolve this via WP:RfC? That would seem to be the obvious solution. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I felt what was happening needed to be heard by the admins, as it felt like a clear violation of rules to me. WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. I agree RfC will be a good choice to finish this dispute. That said another user has already opened up a section to get consensus on the talk page. Should it be shut down with votes discarded or should the votes be factored into the RfC? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point just let the conversation play out. There will likely be a consensus there, and avoid the need for a full RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is amazing. I reverted his initial change one time and haven't since. I responded to his ridiculous claim of censorship (on my talk page, BTW, not the article page). I civilly shared my preference to keep the status quo. The article has the image on top and I haven't opposed it. User:Roman Reigns Fanboy has been rude and accusatory and mischaracterized my intentions. Why are we still talking about this? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't actually share any of your preference. You just stated that it's not censorship. If what you are doing something I believe falls within something, then I would be naturally accusing you of that. That's not rude. If I think a person is censoring, I will warn them and ask not to. After you replied without any explanation I asked politely for explaining how. I tried talking to you, but you refused to talk. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, not true. You claimed censorship when I was moving an image around on the page. That's not censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, which happens all the time and I put it back on the page. I never refused to talk after that, you never started a conversation on the article's page, and it was not my revert that caused you to start this ANI. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. Censorship doesn't just mean deletion, although it is the most common definition. It also means to suppress something from public view. You are deliberately ensuring that most of the public won't see it. Also WP:NOTCENSORED redirects to HELP:NOSEE which is against hiding images in any form by editors. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And yes your revert as well as refusing to talk was one of the causes, hence why I explicitly mentioned your name in the beginning. I knew that attempts at compromise would get stonewalled by you and others reverting as you are doing now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

AS I'M DOING NOW???? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Your argument has been insistently about maintaing the same position on the photo. That too without offering any reason beyond offense to religious sentiments. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You also claimed nobody knows Bahaullah by his given name which is untrue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: So what is this thread about? If it's about Cuñado then is there literally any evidence that user was acting in anything but good faith?
If the question is about whether a local consensus can override a global one, then we already know the answer. If it's about whether there ever was a local consensus at all, then I have to wonder why it matters. I've already presented evidence that one can at least argue there was.
My impression here is that any party involved in the actual content of the article at least believed there was. If there wasn't actually a local consensus, then what? Does it really matter if everyone involved was acting in good faith?
So what are we still doing here? What is there for the community to actually decide? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

MJL, this entire thread began as a result of WP:CENSORSHIP and multiple-editor ownership of the article Baháʼu'lláh. (Please note I'm not accusing anyone specifically, so I won't provide evidence; let's just move on.) I think now this thread is becoming irrelevant, though. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

While I do completely believe in what I've said about censorship, NPOV and Cuñado not caring to discuss, I don't want to throw around more accusations like WP:OWNERSHIP. This thread does seem to be becoming pointless beyond arguments and counter-arguments over who did what and I don't think there's anything coming out of it as no admin is going to act. Better to close it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:11, 2 December 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 MaryKember1675

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 a history of vandalising pages through many accounts, all of which have been blocked. She's back, through block evading, and has been doing what she's know on here for, vandalising pages. Many of her previous accounts were sockpuppets of an original account. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Dipper Dalmatian - I've indefinitely blocked the account for disruptive editing, but my initial search of the articles edited by this user don't yield any that show a history of being vandalized by multiple accounts. How do you know that this account is a sock puppet? Who is this account a sock puppet of? Can you list the other accounts? What proof do you have that this account is a sock puppet? You need to provide evidence to support your accusations if you make them here or on other noticeboards. I would appreciate it if you could respond, elaborate, and provide evidence. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking her. This is the original account of hers: User:Marykember. Here’s the link to a category showcasing all of the sock puppet accounts of the original account: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marykember. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 08:46, 6 December 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 talk:144.121.246.250

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.

---

Can someone please revoke TPA from this IP. IP keeps making threats and personal attacks. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Please see WP:EMERGENCY if you believe it rises to that level. I don't, I think this is run-of-the-mill edgelord trolling. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I thought too. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:41, 7 December 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.

Hasan-aga (talk · contribs) personal attacks + edit warring

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 on Turkish War of Independence calls me Turkish racial supremacist and not me only another one damn Turkish nationalists are racist pigs worse than Hitler some other user. Also So I will keep changing it, and I have the right to do so. Deal with that! on another article. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hasan-aga has called Beshogur a Turkish racial supremacist in this edit summary. I report him myself so Beshogur is left in peace. I believe a stern warning by an Admin would be appropriate, even a hefty block. To call one a racist supremacist is just not the wikipedia spirit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ups, Beshogur was faster and also with additional diffs. Thanks Beshogur. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, in an edit summary in October this editor called another editor a "Turco-Nazi pig". I have blocked Hasan-aga for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 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 talk:192.121.46.57

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.

---

Wondering if someone can elevate this block, IP continues to only add an unblock request with an attack made towards Cluebot. Izzy Moony_{Hi new friend!} 04:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Izzy Moony: It's already been addressed. General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 8 December 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.

TPA revocation needed

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.

---

195.251.69.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This one needs TPA revoked. This IP was blocked and decided to add a personal attack against the blocking admin to their talkpage. They were warned very explicitly that doing so would result in revocation of TPA, but subsequently restored the personal attack. They have not used the unblock template and are solely using their talkpage to make personal attacks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:44, 8 December 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.

Legal threat

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

---

User:FlorinCB has been blocked indefinitely on Romanian Wikipedia for posting legal threats against me (March 16, 2022). On November 30, he posted a new message on his English Wikipedia user talk page this time (that message was subsequently deleted by User:ToBeFree). The same text has been posted by FlorinCB on his sandbox too, showing his clear intention to keep it for some other use. The English language of that text is not always easy to understand, but the references to `fraud`, `prison`, ‘penal complaint’ and ‘PARKET NEAR COURT OF APPEAL’ indicate without any doubt that the user is reiterating the same legal threats as before. Please take the appropriate measures according to WP:LEGAL and WP:BLOCK. Thank you, --Pafsanias (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pafsanias, I hadn't noticed the sandbox modification after my removal yet. I have now warned the user not to continue. It I understand correctly, they are currently not threatening you with any future action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I was advanced by Romanian Police to continue the penal complaint only for "harassment" and I did not agreed since I'm blocked since February on Romanian Wikipedia for his edit were he reserved a note in French. If is about others and not just him I have at least four complaints about state entities similar to the two organizations that I'm leading. After the post here I see they conducted vandalism from IP. FlorinCB (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand, even though your English is better than my Romanian. Are you saying that you may take legal action against Pafsanias, or any other editor of English Wikipedia? If so you must choose not to edit here, or be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thank you for your intervention and the warning message. As you can see, I didn’t react immediately and I thought that waiting for a while could give FlorinCB the opportunity to change his mind and remove the threatening comment. He did not so, for more than a week, and I strongly doubt that he would have done anything if you hadn’t deleted the text yourself. Please note that he had made a similar attempt to intimidate me by legal threat on Romanian Wikipedia and he cannot claim that he hasn’t been warned before. Moreover, I'm affraid that his above answer confirms that he has already taken legal action against me. --Pafsanias (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked, as they say they have legal actions underway. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 8 December 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 User:27.62.84.159 needs blocking and contributions revdelling

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.

---

They've been 'bot reported' on AIV but no-one's taken action and it's also a conduct issue, please see their talk page User_talk:27.62.84.159

JeffUK (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Blablubbs. It seems like their TPA is revoked as well. Sarrail (talk) 15:06, 8 December 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.

Einahr repeatedly adding unsourced WP:DOBs

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.

---

Einahr (talk · contribs) has a history of adding unsourced WP:DOBs to articles, one of the more serious areas of WP:BLP.

The editor has had the need to cite sources politely explained to them more than once, and warned repeatedly [67] [68] [69] but has continued to ignore this policy after final warning.

The edit summary indicates complete disregard for the need for citing sources on personal info. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 1 week. Any admin may unblock if user expresses any reasonable understanding of the policies involved. If they resume when the block expires, it'll probably have to be indefinite. --Jayron32 16:13, 8 December 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 range block

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 IP editor who was range blocked back in August has recently reemerged (see block log for 2601:40:0:0:0:0:0:0/40). Per the duck test, IP range 2601:46 is the same individual. Example diffs:

• List of One Piece characters: new and old
• War in Afghanistan (2001–2021): new and old

So, yeah. I'd like to request another range block for vandalism/disruptive editing/ban evasion. Wani (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 DoneI blocked the /40 for this one as well: [70]. Clearly the same person. --Jayron32 16:17, 8 December 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.

Impersonator

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.

---

• ಮಲ್ನಾಡಿನ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣಿ (talk · contribs)

User with a similar username has copied my userpage and is claiming to be my alternate account. It is not my alternate account. This is probably another sock of Gustin Kelly who has been pestering me about my username [71] [72]. –ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:10, 8 December 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:98.73.117.132

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.

---

IP User:98.73.117.132 has been on a rapid vandalism spreed. In only ~30 minutes, they've managed to rack up a number of reverts and warnings on their talk page. Not a single edit in their short time has been productive. Contributions are here, obviously WP:NOTHERE. Some of these vandalism attempts have gotten a chuckle out of me, so I guess its not all bad. Etrius ( Us) 19:52, 8 December 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 Visa Inc. by many, many (almost certainly connected) IP editors

I'm not going to list all of them, because there are so many, but you can pull up the article's revision history and see for yourself. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) All IPs involved are in the range 2601:249:9381:5a80::/64. It has been blocked for 2 weeks. — B. L. I. R. 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Chrma626 and User:45mml.23 on Article Baccarat (company)

I do not know if this is the correct place for this discussion. However, these 2 users have been frequently edit warring on this article since October 2022. With Chrma claiming 45mml is a paid editor for Baccarat. (Revision 1126098293), with 45mml claiming that Chrma is violating community and copyright guidelines. This has continued and is still occurring.

Proposal: A PB on both of these editors, either for a temporary or permanent amount of time on this specific article to prevent further incidents. Alternative: Attempt to resolve the situation between the editors, such as finding an alternative source for one of their claims.

Im unsure what the best method to resolve this is. I do not see any evidence that Baccarat is a paid editor, However I also do not see any evidence that Chrma is violating guidelines.

Once again, I am unsure if this is the correct place for this discussion, but I am posting it here regardless. I hope we can resolve this situation calmly. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Having looked both the article and their respective contribution history over, yeah, I think a tban from the Baccarat page is called for on both sides. Ravenswing 18:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Because they have engaged in slow motion edit warring, I have indefinitely blocked both editors from editing Baccarat (company). They are free to make well-referenced Edit requests at Talk: Baccarat (company). Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and harrassment

• XAM2175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattdaviesfsic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Garuda3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly NemesisAT

Three train station editors have recently shown up to harrass me, by changing the template colour scheme and using the bogus reason that template colours were wrong and then edit-warred to change them. I checked them under the contrast checker and seemed to ok. I've seen every colour scheme under sun while reviewing articles at NPP and AFC. This feels like harrassment to me. scope_creep^Talk 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, firstly, that none of us three was notified of this on our talk pages, but anyway... I think MOS:CONTRAST is a helpful link here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've sent the link. Garuda3, formely NemesisAT was following me about several months ago and deprodding articles I'd prodded. I feel its harrassment under the harrassment policy, specifically WP:HOUND. Its immensely disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Timeline:

• My initial removal of the background colour setting at Template:German signal intelligence organisations before and during World War II, citing MOS:CONTRAST.
• Scope creep reverts with edit summary "Restore"
• I leave a message at Scope creep's talkpage giving a further explanation, and revert again.
• Scope creep reverts again, without discussion.
• Only later does Scope creep respond to the discussion, during which they make an allegation of harassment and subsequently file this report.

Template:People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group and Template:People of the Soviet Rote Drei resistance group are the other two templates involved. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm also surprised that scope_creep has now reverted the edits (not the issue at hand but I think that's gone over WP:3RR), even after 3 editors disagree based on core WP policy, whilst the discussion here is ongoing. See, e.g., here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed about 30-50 articles this morning and been doing since August. Every combination of colour in the html colour palette is being used. All colours. I've not seen any kind of gnomish work where the template colour have been changed back to the defaults, nor have I seen any WikiProject nor have I read any kind of research in the last 2 years that indicate that readers are having trouble reading Wikipedia templates. More so, I ran the template the under the contrast checker, and none of the colours as particularly bad. Yet, three seemingly independent editors, all train folk turn up at the same time to warn me the template colours are wrong, to support each other. It seems weird. It seems they're collaborating. Its WP:HOUNDING. scope_creep^Talk 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Re the accusation of hounding: I discovered the issue with the template when I happened upon it in use at Wilhelm Tranow. Upon finding it was Scope_creep who made the colour change, I checked to see if they had done it in other places too – something explicitly permitted by the WP:HOUNDING policy. I did not canvass for any support so I cannot suggest how @Mattdaviesfsic or @Garuda3 happened to become involved, other than to say that it's possible that one or both of them watch my talk page and so became aware of the dispute when you made a post there.

The other arguments are addressed in my posts on their talk page. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, Don't edit war over the colour of templates. I don't really care who's right and who's wrong over this, but Scope_creep, if you make one more revert on Template:German signal intelligence organisations before and during World War II, you can be expected to be blocked per policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: With respect, the last line of that essay – There's one caveat: colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Wikipedia, per the colour guideline – is the exact issue at hand here. I don't appreciate the apparent implication that I bear some responsibility in this for being a time-waster. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's really scope_creep who I think is in the wrong here; going up to to the line of 3RR and making unfounded allegations of harassment. In your case, I can see you made an argument for why you changed the template on a talk page, and stopped reverting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hounding is a very unpleasant form of harassment, and not something I would be willing to ignore; however, while this report mentions some issues with Garuda3 in the past, no links are provided, and there is no mention of past issues with the other two editors. Unless this is a pattern of behaviour, I don't think that hounding applies. Perhaps wait and see whether they persist? As an aside, I'd say that the current version of that template is exceedingly difficult to read. The blue hyperlinked text is very similar to the blue background colour. I have exceptionally good vision (or I did when I was a young man - haven't been tested for a few years now), and I have to squint at the screen to read it. With apologies to Scope creep, I have to say that I think the change is a substantial improvement. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The same problem exists at these other templates edited by Scope_creep. I'm reluctant to edit them myself now.

  • Template:People of the Soviet Rote Drei resistance group
  • Template:People of the Soviet Rote Kapelle resistance group
  • Template:People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group
  • Template:James Spence Medal winners

  The latter also has a MOS:DECADES problem with possessive apostrophes. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with Girth Summit here, as well as the other editors who had concerns about the template header colors. I also feel that this is a fairly trivial matter to report to ANI, especially when the editors reported, to my knowledge, have only expressed their concerns regarding color contrast in good faith. Regarding Scope_creep's statement that There is every colour under the sun on Wikipedia, that response is completely inappropriate when someone comes to you expressing policy-based concerns regarding color choice and contrast (not just "muhhh color ugly"). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hounding, or the feeling of being hounded, is not trivial, and it is not inappropriate to bring concerns like that here. I do not feel that the evidence presented here is sufficient to substantiate that accusation, but let's not pile onto the OP who is obviously feeling got at. I see that XtraJovial is another member of WP:TRAINS, mentioned in the original posting; I am sure that this is innocent, but I can understand why the OP might be feeling that there is collusion when so many editors from the same project decide to chime in with one another on the same subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Another (Non-administrator comment). I had to revert the German signal intelligence template because, well, the second word in the header was blue on blue and, hence, invisible. @Scope creep:, please note the WP:3RR policy you'd be in violation of with your next reversion of said template. Seasider53 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  100% agree the blue on blue is very difficult to read. I say that as someone with 20/10 vision (slightly better than average). It's just a difficult issue of color discrimination per MOS:CONTRAST. I changed the above templates to the default style. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• While I'm far from an expert on accessibility I have to agree that the older version was hard to read. If it passed some the contrast checker test, this is perhaps a good time to remember that automated tools are often imperfect and can miss stuff that is still a problem. You can probably mostly ignore the problem of false positives since it's difficult to be sure it's a false positive unless you have studied this stuff in detail to be sure about the interaction of the myriad of devices with the myriad of different vision limitations. But if someone says that something is a problem despite passing the test, you really should engage with this editor. I'd also note that these tools need to be used correctly. The problem with this template seems to be with links and it doesn't look like the link colour is defined by the template, I assume it's the default for the skin used or whatever. So any test would need to consider these links colour. Finally remember per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST we have a lot of problems all over including MOS:ACCESSIBILITY violations. These are unfortunate but their exist shouldn't be taken as a reasont o continue to violate accessibility guidelines elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I tested the link text in the WebAIM contrast checker with both the old default colour #0645AD, and the new slightly-different one (#3366CC) used in the Vector skin, and both returned contrast ratios of less than 1.8:1 (when WCAG AAA specifies a minimum of 4.5:1 for large text and 7:1 for small).

  I notice now that Scope_creep has removed the messages from his talk page describing them as "disruptive", and has left a comment below here that includes White on blue is extremely easy to read, both of which suggest that they are very unwilling to actually engage with the discussion given that it's been mentioned several times now that the problem is the blue-on-blue text. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Last year or the beginning of this year, Garuda3 formerly NemesisAT, tried to get me blocked for edit warring. I would like interaction ban on this editor as I don't want him near me or on the talk page. He is disruptive and is harrassing me. It is a continual hassle with this editor. These article that use these templates have been comprehensively edited for copyedit and not once has this problem come up, in the many years that these articles have existed. The reason I changed them in the first places is that don't have good eyesight. White on blue is extremely easy to read. scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Last year or the beginning of this year, Garuda3 formerly NemesisAT, tried to get me blocked for edit warring." That would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive444#User:Scope creep reported by User:NemesisAT (Result: Warned) where you were warned by EdJohnston that you had violated 3RR on Interlake Maritime Services, and the only reason you were not blocked is that the issue was stale. This came after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlake Maritime Services, which you started with the (IMHO) weak rationale "Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP" and which was closed as "Keep" despite your attempts to bludgeon those who disagreed with you. Do not accuse any more editors of harassment without hard evidence (ie: diffs) or they may be considered personal attacks and sanctioned accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Garuda3's habit of deprodding and contesting any attempts to deal with non-notable train articles is a massive pain, but I'm not sure that rises to the point of being sanctionable. This editor makes a habit of deproding anything that gets PRODed, to the point it drives NPPers crazy. But PRODs can be removed for any reason, even if it's a stupid reason. I don't see what there is for ANI to do here. Garuda3 has little understanding of notability, but again that isn't inherently sanctionable, just annoying. There have been some previous ANI discussions about Garuda3, including one where an editor attempted to get an interaction ban with them. I'd have to spend some time digging to find those threads. But if you think Garuda3 saying Just revert all these ugly navboxes back to the default colours IMO. That resolevs the problem and will make them easier to read. is harassment, I don't know what to tell you. I am NOT a fan of Garuda3, again, but as far as I can tell they've done nothing wrong here.

  If you believe Garuda3's conduct in the deletion areas is an issue (and you might find some agreement on that point from me), then start a thread about that issue. And please don't group everyone under the banner "train station editors". I routinely edit such articles and my views are quite different than some of the users mentioned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• There's also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:Scope_creep Revenge and disruptive editing for which scope_creep got an indefinite block for harassment (that was rescinded after an apology). Scope_creep, I genuinely do not understand why someone with your level of skill and experience is choosing this particular hill to die on. It makes no sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Re-reading what I wrote, I think it was misinterpreted. I was referring to all navboxes, as in, I think it may be best to get rid of custom colours for navboxes altogether. I didn't mean to specifically pick on these particular navboxes. Anyway, I'm sorry for the upset caused. I had scope creep's user talk page on my watchlist as we spoke previously but I have now removed it. Garuda3 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• I second Scope_creep, I genuinely do not understand why someone with your level of skill and experience is choosing this particular hill to die on. It makes no sense.. As with all accessability issues, if someone raises a legitimate concern that a particular format is causing problems and remedying the concern won't cause problems or take a disproportionate effort, we should make the change regardless of whether it's explicitly spelled out in MOS:ACCESS—since it isn't going to have any negative impact on any reader and will potentially help some readers, it should be a complete no-brainer. I don't understand how there's even an argument here. ‑ Iridescent 06:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User Cardboardboxhd is continuously inserting content sourced to an unreliable source

Cardboardboxhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously adding the following statement to Telegram (software), which is sourced to The Fat Emperor, which doesn't seem to meet WP:RS, even after it has been reverted.

"This claim is dubious however due to the intentionally vague meaning of the term "far-right" and also considering the financial backers of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue being a large conflict of interest."

References

When it was previously reverted by other editors (@Jokrez, @ASpacemanFalls, @Pirk), Cardboardboxhd restored the content, including the justification as "undoing vandalism" in the edit summary.

In the article's talk page, Cardboardboxhd said: "Your claim that it is "not a reliable source" when it is merely a collection of publicly available stats in a single, easy to access location is misguided. Until a legitimate case is made for this sections' removal I will continue to reinstate it as it adds critically important context to the previous piece in the paragraph. Another option would be to remove the previous section too as it's only there to try to tarnish Telegram's reputation. It could easily be argued (and it is by some) that the ISD is not a reliable source itself so if you have issue with the part I am reinstating over and over, consider removing the previous part too. I considered removing it originally but opted to add additional context to it instead as I didn't want to be seen to "sanitize" the page so to speak." Isi96 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

All I will add is that I have addressed Cardboardboxhd on their Talk page and received a rather, erm, inappropriate response. I guided them to the Talk page and encouraged them and Isi96 to start a conversation but nothing came of it. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, and I do believe this whole discussion belongs to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, @Isi96. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

My bad. This is my first time doing this. Could it be moved there? Isi96 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ASpacemanFalls, I wasn't involved in the discussion you speak of. Isi96 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed it again. It's editorialising and synthesis, and the source doesn't really back it up even if it is reliable. I've also warned them not to reinsert it. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:173.218.150.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) NOTHERE

This editer seems tho be WP:NOTHERE based on this edit.1AmNobody24 (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks more like a lack of familiarity with how Wikipedia works. I'll have a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Whelan (security director)

An admin is needed over there due to the usual Wikipedia US political fuckery ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artificial Nagger (talk • contribs)

Sorry, @Artificial Nagger: you're going to need to be a bit more specific. It is unclear what fuckery you think needs admin attention. Can you provide some diffs that highlight any problems? Thanks. --Jayron32 19:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m unable to do diffs at this time. Seems to be some edit warring the lead to include/occlude information on this BLP that might lead people to believe this is a very bad man. That and they’re screwing up the formatting in the process. Artificial Nagger (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There may be some sockpuppetry going on. I'll take another look later for a formal report if someone else doesn't but an SPA and some newly created accounts hanging around this BLP. Slywriter (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is now under pending changes protection for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I find that PC is a poor choice when there are many edits and BLP implications, but I suppose we'll see.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone should probably take a look at Paul Whelan (security director). There is a very obvious attempt at WP:SOCK going on, a half dozen IPs (I'll pretend I know how /64s work) and a few accounts, that are clearly being cycled through. This page is making nearly hourly appearances in the Pending Changes Log with nonsensical edits. Etrius ( Us) 22:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

*sigh* Yeah, I didn't think PC was going to work well, but there were anons in there fighting the vandalism too, so I thought I'd give it a try. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the pending changes for now. It was a 'hodge-podge' of constructive edits, nonconstructive edits, and corrections to the aforementioned edits. Frankly, it would've been pointless to parse through it all since the original pending edit was unsourced and, at this point, reaching edit war territory. Etrius ( Us) 03:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I added semi-protection for three days, there are really too many bad edits for the moment. Pending changes protection is still there, when the semi expired pending changes remain active for a few days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Unusual account activity, possibly NOTHERE

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

---

Maniasophy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, this account trigged the unusual account activity edit filer. They have 10 edits to mainspace and over 300 to their userpage. This appears to me to be an attempt to game the system to gain ECP. Or they are just screwing around, I can't tell. I asked them what they were doing [73] here but my question went unanswered and they blanked the page. They have continued to edit their userpage, now with rather bizarre additions. Could I get some eyes on this activity from those that are familiar with this sort of apparent gaming? Thanks, Jip Orlando (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely someone to keep an eye on. I mean, strictly speaking, playing around with the UP is not exactly sanctionable, but this is verging on WP:NOTHERE. --Jayron32 16:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We can always remove ECP etc if we feel it's been gamed, that's not a big deal. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! Maniasophy (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, we are done here. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

no...wait...they had so much to offer... Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 9 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Damansara Shopping Mall (2nd nomination)

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 would appreciate some input from experienced editors at this discussion; particularly those familiar with WP:CORPDEPTH. I suspect, although I have no proof, that possibly some of the editors participating at this AFD may have an undisclosed WP:COI with this for-profit business. Regardless, anyone with knowledge and experience dealing with the notability of pages on for-profit businesses that are willing to comment about the notability of this mall in particular would be appreciated. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4: While there was nothing wrong with posting a neutral notice on the notability guideline talk page I find it very concerning that you appear to have tried to canvass an "expert" to that discussion. Please don't do that again, it's simply no acceptable and is enough to topic ban you from AfDs IMO. Keep notifications to wikiprojects and similar, and only notify individual editors if are notifying all editors with experience with the article or previous AfDs on the same article something where you can fairly demonstrate you were not biased in you selection. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Equally concerning, despite accusing 3 editors of possibly having an undisclosed COI with self admitted no evidence, you neglected to inform them. I'm even more strongly leaning towards a topic ban. In the mean time, I'm going to notify them Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Having a quick look the the respective editor's editing histories, I see no reason to think an undisclosed COI. Actually one of the usernames was instantly recognisable to me. It seems to me far more likely is this is a typical case of editors with different views of our notability guidelines (likely including to some extent different parts of the inclusionist vs deletionist spectrum) probably combined with other issues like systemic bias concerns who found the AfD in some fashion expressing their views. Some of the comments may very well be against the consensus of parts of our policies and guidelines, that's hardly atypical. I mean I could assume that you have an undisclosed CoI and that's why your so desperate to get the article deleted to the extent that you canvassed an editor and raised the possibility of an undisclosed CoI here on ANI with a self admitted no evidence. But the far more likely thing is you're acting in good faith, and saw something which you thought was concerning and unfortunately responded in a very poor manner. Please remember that editors often do in good faith make mistakes or misunderstand our policies and guidelines. E.g. in that very discussion a delete voter appears to have incorrectly assumed some stores were closed, which to be fair are closed, because the business was closed. But the reality is both businesses still exist in Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I will not make the mistake again of pinging a specific user, although my intention was to get help from a user who seems to be a regular contributor at AFD and is a regular participant in NCORP related discussion. I thought I was being helpful, and not obstructive. Further, I did not accuse three editors anywhere. I specifically chose not to name anyone because I have no hard evidence. I also do not suspect everyone at the AFD. You are putting words into my mouth, and pinging people who I have no issue with. I really wanted to just get some more experienced editors involved. That’s my only intention here. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We are at ANI, this is not a place to have a conversation in a vacuum. By linking to the AfD, they were implicitly named and are parties especially as this is a forum for behavioral issues. Though, I would say the same if we were at the teahouse because talking about editors as a hypothetical doesn't exist and they have a right to know their actions are being discussed. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Then I categorically retract my statement regarding any COI if that is going to be the response here. Apologies for not handling this better, and apparently waisting everyone's time here at ANI. I consider this matter closed. On a positive side, at least this conversation may have brought more participation from a wider audience to the AFD discussion. I wish everyone here and at the AFD well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Having participated in this AFD discussion by relisting it, I'm surprised to see it brought up on ANI of all places. There is nothing very notable about it, it is much less contentious than most AFDs that I review (at least the ones that are not unanimous). Everyone comes to a discussion with a point-of-view, often undisclosed. I'm much more concerned with POVs in discussions about cryptocurrency firms than one about a random shopping mall. I'm surprised that this AFD even got your attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, I was picturing this modest little AFD that I've dealt with over the past 2 weeks but in the past 6 hours or so the discussion there has exploded, I gather from the publicity it received for being mentioned on this noticeboard. It doesn't bear any resemblance to the quiet discussion that existed up to today. I wish this kind of attention could be spread around to more AFDs, there are so many that barely receive one editor's participation in them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Putting a vote as Keep doesn't mean that the person could be involved with the company, you cant just assume someone works or is closely related to the company for a Keep vote.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t make that assumption in your case Helpingworld. The problem of pinging editors to this discussion who I never named is that people are now making assumptions about what I meant. Regardless I retracted my comment. This issue is over.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You got what you wanted and the article was deleted. All that's left to say really is that a very quick glance at my contribution history would show that I do not have a COI with a Malaysian shopping centre. Garuda3 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I definitely over reacted yesterday, and allowed our conflict to impact my perception of what was occurring in a way that was not fair to you. Apologies to you Garuda3. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 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:Spilia4; POV-pushing; Not assuming good faith; inappropriate, retaliatory templates

While editing Carey Price tonight, I noticed this edit summary that was left by Spilia4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not assuming good faith. I politely, but sternly, reminded them of the AGF policy using a level-2 template as the user does appear to have been using Wikipedia for a while. I then reverted the edit in question, as I disagreed with them that the "wording is more supported by the source". I was surprised when they retaliated by copying and pasting verbatim what I had left on their talk page onto mine. Concerned by the totality of the behaviour, I checked out some other edits they made to Carey Price and have found what I believe to be POV-pushing.

• [74] - This edit violates NPOV as A) it omits the fact that Price received backlash for his comments and B) It misrepresents the legislation in question, which the source used does not at all say "would outlaw the majority of hunting firearms."
• [75] - Reverts an editor attempting to make the paragraph more neutral by giving attribution to the claim.
• Additionally, the first diff I linked to was similarly a revert of an attempt to bring more neutrality into the article.

I have no issue with discussion on the talk page, but not if the other user is going to vandalize my talk page like that. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been an active and respected Wikipedia editor for nearly 9 years with thousands of contributions, as my userpage, talk and contributions list will show. I have never had an incident with any user on Wikipedia before this libelous post. My edits are in line with the promotion of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. My edits were not combative, were not driven by agenda, and were not driven by ulterior motives. My edits are supportive by the majority of sources on the topic, including the ones linked within the article in question. The second edit in question removes original research which was not supportive by the sources. I reject this notion of POV pushing, which it appears the user who instigated this incident may themselves be engaging in, and do not believe I need to comment further on the issue. I will welcome others comments, of course, in determining how to proceed, although as stands, I question the grounds on which this 'incident' was brought forth. Spilia4 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of *my* supposed POV-pushing. I'd love to hear it. I was able to provide three. I would also argue that you were the one who introduced the original research when you wrote "...which would outlaw the majority of hunting firearms." Furthermore, there was absolutely no reason to write the full statement including naming Justin Trudeau.. Those two facets combined make it seem as if you're trying to push an anti-gun control/anti-Liberal Party of Canada narrative. Being here for 9 years also does not give you the excuse to accuse the IP you reverted of acting in bad faith just because you disagree with them. Also, I wish you would address the vandalism to my talk page. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Spilia4's editing here is not at all to their credit -- clear misrepresentation of the source, clear AGF violations, low-level edit-warring. It's disappointing to see no talk-page discussion anywhere, and it would certainly be worrisome if they were to re-revert. I don't think it's a good idea to describe retaliatory templating as "vandalism", though. JBL (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Iathien & Talk:Mediterranean Sea,

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:Iathien seems to have a problem with Turkey being mentioned in areas they consider purely Greek, see Talk:Mediterranean Sea & Talk:Mediterranean Sea. The editor seems to be Greek and is fighting the Greek/Turkey dispute on these pages. I think it is likely breaching WP:NPOV as well as being tedious. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, you have yourself levelled personal attacks against other editors in the talk page threads you are referring to. I am not saying that Iathien's conduct has been acceptable - it has not - but yours is also seriously substandard. I don't have a view on the content dispute that is at the heart of this, but you need to take a look at your own behaviour here, regardless of who is right and who is wrong on the content. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I suggest you put a complaint in about me, rather than use this one to vent your pent-up anger.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not an ideal response. I thought the username was familiar - I realise that I blocked Kitchen Knife myself for personal attacks earlier this year. Since then, they have been blocked again in November for PAs, and had TPA revoked for abuse of their talk page while blocked, and their fifth edit after that block expired was to call another editor a ridiculous and laughable Greek Propagandist, who cannot even read a map. Since they seem not to understand what the problem is, I have blocked Kitchen Knife indefinitely. I currently have no view on whether any action is needed with regard to Iathien: they certainly seem to be casting aspersions about other editors inappropriately, but the account has very few edits so this might be down to inexperience. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's quasi-moot since your block, but you're not an ANI rookie, and you have no excuse for not understanding how ANI works. Any participant is liable to have their own record reviewed and questioned, and no participant gets to dictate what is or is not discussed. Ravenswing 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP has been indef with TPA revoked for continued harassment and combative editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not need militant, aggressive nationalists of any nationality on this encyclopedia. I would happily block three Greeks and three Turks, and an Armenian, an Azerbaijani. a Kurd, a Syrian and an Israeli too. Even an American or a Mexican. Oh, a Pakistani and an Indian too. Edit neutrally and calmly, collaborating and building consensus with people witn different views, or you are going to get blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 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:OCCPlaza

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.

---

Constant personal attacks against Randy Kryn. See the talk page of the user, its history, and these diffs. 1 2 3 (Article history here) 4 (Article history here) 5 (Article history here) 6 7 (Article history here) 8 (Article history here) 9 (Article history here) 10 (Article history here) 11 (Article history here) There's more than this. Check user contribs for more info. Sounds like WP:HOUNDING. — B. L. I. R. 20:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Come on folks, just let this master sockmaster back on again. He's not going away and he's probably rightfully pissed because he loves editing Wikipedia and was originally indeffed for things which at most should have deserved a week's block. Keeping him blocked is not only hurting the encyclopedia but is hurting me and my editing, which is not cool either way (and is there a way to turn off this new talk page thing where the talk page is suggesting words? Whoever thought that one up should be indeffed, ha!). Can't there at least be a subpage set up where he's allowed to talk and give suggestions for pages he can't edit? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Certainly not. The user is community banned ([76]) and has continued their harassment. Describing measures against their abuse, instead of the abuse itself, as "hurting" is a form of victim blaming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Randy Kryn, looks like you'll just have to take one for the team. EEng 00:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that, I had stopped reading it after awhile and missed the ping where he'd asked me, in very kind words, to step in and try to mediate between two language sets. Up to that point the discussion itself was so wall of texty that it was difficult to keep up. I'd assumed that he'd get a one week or month ban, and so did he, and had made sincere offers of trying to learn about wall of texts (which you are in right now). A week or month seemed about right for the infractions, and I stopped reading the discussion. Too many edits at once and wall of texts aplenty, so few took the time to read it. And on a reading of it now I only skimmed MrBeast's responses, way too wall of texty. I can see the frustration on both sides. Yeah, a month would have done it, with some understandings and learning curve thrown in. I assumed that's where it was heading. But just now I noticed it went from that language - "a week", or "a month" - and then the piling on began. No holding that back, the piling on for past wrongs flowed like water. I missed all of that at the time, and never expected the thing to escalate. Why? Not having had previous dealings with him, I didn't know about the past wall of texts conflicts, so took the result as a given - a week or a month ban. Well deserved, overwhelming a whole team of editors at such a major article as United States page, like a bull in a china shop with over 500 edits (not allowing space for page regulars to just take it all in a bit at a time), although, and this is the interesting part, the bull was not breaking much china along the way. I've never checked those edits but they weren't reverted in masse until they were, so most may have been okay edits. I originally reverted one because he had offered a revert in his edit summary, and he agreed on the reasoning, and I thought that was a nice talk but did not keep close track of the page edits or talk discussions after that. I don't regularly edit and have never page watched United States. This is wall of text now, but I can tell you, in the past few months he has learned to keep comments shorter. My entire point is that the indef ban seems to have been given for past interactions and editing style in past discussions, and not for the issues being addressed at the beginning of what seemed a simple discussion. On reading it now, the "one week" and "one month" language was soon lost (hopefully not because I missed a ping), and it quickly turns and reads like a kick him when he's down event. Way too much punishment for his edits at the United States article and its talk page, and he's punished me for everything because he may have been counting on me to stem the tide. Allowing him a re-hearing on just the original charges would be fair, because of WP:PILEON (which doesn't exist but describes what occurred here). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TL;DNR. YSKB. WTKWWGOBMEGO. OW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TL;DNR sums up much of why MrBeast was banned. When a week or two ban would have fairly handled the situation, what happened instead was an indef, and that's where it became unfair. Indefs during a civil polite discussion should be hard to come by, not the easy way out. He wrote in a series of long breaths during the discussion, but from what I read they were polite TL;DNR's. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Those are mighty big assumptions you're carrying around. Bottom line is: the community banned them. They should find another hobby. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 10 December 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.

Machiavellian Gaddafi and Llll5032

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.

---

Request for a temporary ban for user:Llll5032, or a ban from editing Censored.TV. Multiple instances on talk page of warring and blatant editing biases. The latest example is of page titled Censored.TV, as user is submitting continuous reverts, of which new references and edit summary do not match given do not match edits.

• Llll5032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continuous reverts, of which edit summary does not match given do not match edits. Wikipedia:Edit warring

Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Most of this new article, about a controversial website, was unreliably sourced and self-sourced. I removed undue WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PROMO content, aligned the descriptions to the WP:BESTSOURCES available, and added tags. I made no reverts. Machiavellian Gaddafi has reverted my editing and decided to escalate to ANI without discussing on the article talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Machiavellian Gaddafi wrote most of the article in dispute. Machiavellian Gaddafi wrote tonight on my user talk page about one section, "Expecting an email with various articles included in it tomorrow, and I will implement them once I receive them." I don't know what Machiavellian Gaddafi meant by that, but an explanation may help. Llll5032 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

From User: Machiavellian Gaddafi

User WAS warned, but shows to remove it from their page, as seen below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1126409909&markasread=266129110&markasreadwiki=enwiki

User is also continuing to vandalize and misinterpret the page Gavin McInnes with purposeful biases. Warnings like these have been given by several other users over the recent past (starting in October of 2021), as you will see on there talk page. This is an ongoing issue that apparently hasn't been addressed, and it shows that this user, Llll5032, is using Wikipedia for their own personal issues rather than matching what said reference points present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not "continuing" anything. My edit at Gavin McInnes was well sourced, and now I see that my edit in fact returned a description ("far right") to the stable version that existed before Machiavellian Gaddafi changed it on December 6. Llll5032 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And no, all my edits came before any "warning" by OP (by a minute); the first communication by OP was the ANI notice, with no prior discussion. I detailed more below about the chronology and my hasty deletion of part of the notice on my user talk page (not in bad faith), but I realize now that this aspersion needs a more immediate correction. Llll5032 (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From Machiavellian Gaddafi

There's a clear pattern here, shown through both your edit history and, not specifically, complaints from other users. I'm only asking that you cannot continue to edit these pages, as your reasonings do not match your actions. For example, one of your edits included falsely adding a an individual the Censored.TV that is not part of their staff, and had never been employed. You also added the term white supremacist to this person, being Nick Fuentes. Although that accurately describes him, putting this on a page that has nothing to do with him other than an interview is slander. As aforementioned, your edits have a pattern of doing such things, and others have talked to you about it. Let's let the administration decide what to do with this, and I ask in the meantime that you stop with this obsessive and overreaching behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I added white nationalist because that is what the two cited RS called him.[77][78]. Machiavellian Gaddafi's description for Fuentes is "campaign staff member and political commentator",[79] which is not a description used in the RS. (Also, I want to note that I used white nationalist to match the two RS, not white supremacist as Machiavellian Gaddafi writes above. I ask Machiavellian Gaddafi to cease aspersions and take a break.) Llll5032 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From From Machiavellian Gaddafi

Let's leave it up to the administration to decide, after reviewing your edits and complaints from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

One more thing: I take WP:CONSENSUS seriously and discuss any disagreements in good faith in summaries or on article talk pages. So no, I did not ignore any warnings from Machiavellian Gaddafi. My last edit to either disputed article was at 5:13, a minute before I was notified of Machiavellian Gaddafi's first communications to me at 5:14, which was an ANI notice!. (Machiavellian Gaddafi appears to think that I used some bad faith when I deleted half of that 5:14 notice in my reply on my talk page, which quoted his initial 5:10 ANI complaint that did not tag me, but I actually deleted it because it had a repeated heading and I thought it was an ugly mistake.) Meanwhile, Machiavellian Gaddafi has edit-warred his preferred versions back in at Censored.TV[80] and McInnes[81] since making his complaint. Llll5032 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As do I, but your recent actions say otherwise. You still haven't explained why you chose to delete 80% of the Censored.TV Show section, instead of addressing the issues at hand. I reverted the changes as the removals did not follow Wikipedia guideline (as I'm allowed to do without continuous warring, hence the Undo link), as a number of would've been warranted. I created the page just 24 hours ago, and to delete almost all of it when all of the references/links, which are direct urls to the content mentioned, raises a red flag. Reading through your talk page shows that you're notorious for this kind of editing, and it always targets political figures and commentators of both the moderate, libertarian (McInnes), and conservative realms. 100% of your issues with other user have has to do with pages like these. Now, I understand that you can edit whatever page you want, but you have a history of overstepping Wikipedia Guidelines and deleting other's hard work, due to what shows as blatant bias and borderline vandalism. As a so-called Longtime Wikipedia fan, occasional editor, this contrasts the persistent complaints by others.

I don't want you banned, but you do seem to have to do a lot of apologizing for "mistakes", mistakes that always involve the same actions and targets. The same mistakes don't happen dozens of times. Some of these edits are by paid, freelance editors, and they take these articles seriously. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m in hospital waiting for a CT PET scan and don’t have much to say other than this seems to be a political dispute. I’ve seen pov and badly sourced edits by you and I’d advise any other Admins or editors to look at he edits by both of you. I don’t know what paid editors you are talking about, could you elucidate? Doug Weller talk 08:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the OP’s talk page they say they are paid to edit. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of the user complaints are from freelance editors from two different outlets; that's all I was referring to. I'm personally not paid for any edits a this time, but rather doing some work for some peers. Anyways, thank you for reaching out to me, and I'll try and be more accurate with some of my sources and formatting. The only real issues that I have were mislabeling and excessive deletions, but your on it, so that's all from me. Thanks again, and good luck with the CT scan... hospital visits are far from pleasurable. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Machiavellian Gaddafi Who are those editors. And you are an undisclosed paid editor according to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can see the problem isn't Llll5032. I've just had to revert another load of edits by Machiavellian Gaddafi on Gavin McInnes. When someone's politics are consistently referred to as far-right, there are multiple sources for that, and the actual title (not the content) of the first source uses the words "far-right", then changing it to "conservative" is simply disruptive (especially when your edit summary says "Far right is a form of slander"). They also keep introducing unreliable sources. Yesterday I had to revert their changes because they were introducing red-flag language like "according to the mainstream media" into sections containing language they didn't like. I'd suggest they stop editing on the subject since they appear to be unable to maintain NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

I answered you on my talk page. As far as the two that ARE paid, two people indicated it in their talk pages, and I honestly didn't care enough to remember, as they had some type of box/badge saying so. That said, not all of the Llll5032 talk pages are complaints, so it shouldn't be too hard to find on your end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer me, you responded to User:Justlettersandnumbers saying you aren't paid, despite saying on Nov. 22 " I'm paid to make these edits, and losing 350+ characters after spending multiple hours writing it is unfortunate, to say the least." Doug Weller talk 10:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction, that statement was made on 26 or 27 November, depending on timezones. Hopefully the link is helpful. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

Yes, I did (read again, below)

I'm not paid or compensated, but rather contributing to the best of my knowledge. I have interest is certain areas, but this is just a hobby. That said, once I feel like I've reached the point where I COULD do this as a side job (I'm still fairly green), the first thing I'll do is fill out the form. Thanks! Alan C. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs)

@Machiavellian Gaddafi: Why did you write "I'm paid to make these edits" if you're now saying "I'm not paid or compensated"? Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite|Black Kite

Your reply is an example of some of what I'm talking about. You took a reliable source, that being the New York Times, didn't bother reading anything but the headline, and totally dismissed where McInnis stated that he is a fiscal conservative and libertarian. I feel like many of you don't bother reading the articles, and she's taking lazy way out and read headlines. If someone says that they identify with a certain political ideology, that's what they are. A journalist that probably met them for the first time that day doesn't trump what the person themselves identifies as. For example, seated interview and told someone you worked at a retail store, but in the headline they wrote that you didn't work. Who's correct? You are the content in this scenario, and the reporter is the relay. Am I wrong, @Doug Weller? Shouldn't a reliable source that clearly states within their article that McInnis identify as in the way he does be relevant? There seems to be a bigger issue here, and that extends beyond my original issue. No, I don't work for any of these people who I've edited, but I'm starting to think that maybe I should reach out to them in regards to what's happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• If someone says that they identify with a certain political ideology, that's what they are. Er, no. That is absolutely NOT how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. If you do not understand how reliable sourcing works here, then you are definitely better off not editing biographies of living people. It is actually fine to say that McInnes claims to be a conservative, though - and look, that's exactly what it says in the lead paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@SamWalton9

It's an A-B conversation my friend—A and B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I went over this talk where I said I was paid, and it looks like I made a typo. I often type via microphone, as I'm doing now, and sometimes things just don't come out the right way. As I said before, if I'm looking to get paid, I'll fill out the form. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't figure out what you were trying to say, it certainly makes sense as it is. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

Is New York Times a reliable source? Do statements coming from the mouth of the person being interviewed in a New York Times be deemed as factual information? Should libertarians and other moderate types be labeled far right, when their counterparts are never labeled as far left? These are clear biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Anyway, I presume you are aware that the sentence Mcinnes (claims) that he is not far-right or a supporter of fascism, identifying as "a fiscal conservative and libertarian" sourced to the New York Times already exists in the lead paragraph? Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite (talk)

Machiavellian Gaddafi, may have one valid point, if one looks at the contents of Category:Far-right politicians in the United States and Category:Far-left politicians in the United States, there is a huge imbalance. There are other possible explanations than Bias, however. — Jacona (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, but his personal identity that he relayed is more truthful that a reporters opinion. There's nothing in far-right politics that states anything even close to libertarian or fiscal conservative. Isn't our goal to be as factual as possible? I guess I'm going to have to find some more articles that support his identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• It is precisely because our goal is to be factual as possible, that we present the subject's own claims as precisely that - claims - when they are contradicted by multiple reliable sources. You can imagine the chaos that would ensue if we were required to use subject's own claims as the unambiguous truth - since they could claim absolutely anything about themselves. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite

This is becoming off topic and redundant, so I'll move this debate to the page's talk page. I'm sure we can all come to a happy and fair medium eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just opening the thread for a PS: I have blocked Machiavellian Gaddafi indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing and not being here to help build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 10 December 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 page moves of African leaders

@Setswana: has recently been moving the pages of African leadership positions (President of X, Prime Minister of X) to "List of presidents/leaders etc....." (see Prime Minister of Zimbabwe for an example). Most of these can be reverted but I noticed yesterday on President of Zambia where the page was moved to a "List of" and then recreated as a duplicate (this was sorted by @Asukite: at WP:RM) but given the history of this user doing this in their logs as well as their apparent refusal to engage when I asked about it, suggests we may need to have a discussion about this as well as possible wholesale reversals of their undiscussed moves. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(What a coincidence, I just requested TPA revocation for an IP and I see this in the section above)

If they're back up to this nonsense again, an indefinite block for disruptive editing is needed, until such time as they are willing to actually engage with other editors. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I had thought about that being a possibility under WP:NOTHERE but i'd like to see what the admins think. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked for 3 days by Ad Orientem. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Setswana has now returned to edit war whilst logged out using multiple IPs, clear DUCKS, on List of prime ministers of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See 2405:205:150a:3f71::939:8a0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 103.129.220.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we now make the necessary indef? And block the IPs too. Honestly, I thought that they'd at least wait out the block before getting back up to their nonsense, but apparently not. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet another twist. We have socking.

Quacking is coming from the following accounts:

Botswana Gaborone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (for those unaware, Setswana is a major language in Botswana)

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

May add some more, this will probably need splitting off to a proper SPI at some point. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Setswana indeffed. IP's blocked. List of prime ministers of India protected x 2 years. Two sock accounts already indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk)

Thanks. It seems that they have been evading scrutiny for a while. See 2405:205:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Back in August, Tamzin gave this range a week off. Maybe it might do to watch this range, but blocking the /36 doesn't seem necessary (yet). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the 2405:205:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 range x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, there was a lot of other garbage coming from that range too. I was just thinking of the stuff which was obviously from Setswana. Good block. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record – I tagged Setswana and Suiste mollar filtri with appropriate sock-related tags, but I was unable to do the same with Botswana Gaborone, due to their Wikimedia account. When I tried to tag the Wikimedia account, it was refused and I got a message that some of my rights (apparently my autoconfirmed status) are temporarily revoked. I am really not familiar with all of this, so it would be appreciated if someone can look into this issue. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I figured out how to properly tag Botswana Gaborone on the English Wikipedia, so I did it. The existence of their Wikimedia account caused come confusion on my part. Someone should look into the issue of whether its necessary to tag the Wikimedia account as well, and the issue of my rights status, as I said in the post above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There also seems to be Admi Javed Khan king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who scored an indef cublock from Drmies. It may do to hear what they found to trigger that (or at least as much as they can share). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mako001--well spotted. Yes, that editor is completely incompetent and a terrible nuisance. Perhaps one of you would like to start an SPI; I have also CU-blocked User:Джавед Хан 786 786, User:Botswana Gaborone, and User:Suiste mollar filtri. Pinging User:Yamaguchi先生 as well--you blocked a big fat range, first for some of those articles and then just generally. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll start an SPI sometime withing the next few hours. At this point, it will basically just be a fomalisation and summarisation of this discussion, since all accounts are indef blocked. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikolai Boyanov

Nikolai Boyanov (talk · contribs)

Nikolai has been continously adding unsourced materials to various articles including BLP ones in violations of WP:BLP and/or WP:VERIFY despite being warned multiple times by me and other editors, and also getting blocked for the same disruptive behaviour last month on 9 November, clearly Nikolai couldn't be bothered (WP:IDHT) to comply with our guidelines and policies especially WP:VERIFY. Also noting that majority of their edits were made on desktop (noting the lack of tags in their edits) hence not because of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU.

Here are 10 edits made on various articles since Nikolai was unblocked.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] There are more available via Nikolai's contribs, if required, I can help to provide them also. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

On a quick skim through the editing history I can't find any evidence that Nikolai Boyanov has every edited a talk or user talk page. This is concerning. Maybe a partial block from article space would be in order until this editor decides to start communicating? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sceptical that partial block from mainspace would even work because I doubt that Nikolai is unaware of the warnings to being with as they had previously posted on my talk page that they're aware of the messages as seen here and here. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple similarly named editors repeatedly adding unwanted content to my talk page

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

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

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

Please see changes here [92] from above users (so far).

Repeatedly adding a 'pornstar award' to my talk page (Which is definitely unwarranted and unwanted!) after being asked to stop. A lot of these contributions also seem to be unconstructive (reverting edits for no reason, removing templates from articles for no reason etc.) Special:Contributions/Devrimdpt JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also making direct attacks against other users in similar edit summaries e.g. User talk:Onel5969 - Wikipedia JeffUK (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

All indefinitely blocked with TPA and email turned off. Please ask if you would like your User/talk pages semi-protected for a while. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thailand IP range keeps ignoring film billing block limitations

• 2403:6200:8814:3F74:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The billing block of a film lists the actors who were able to negotiate star billing in the film. The infobox of film articles should reproduce this list exactly. Someone in Thailand has been very prolific in adding more actors to the infobox—actors who are not credited as stars.[93][94][95] Despite hundreds of edits, they have never contributed to a talk page. Can we give them a timeout and a chance to open discussion? Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Ukrainian conspiracy theory spread by Keith-264

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:Keith-264 is peppering their comments with false, harmful anti-Ukrainian conspiracy theories.

• As for Kherson, it's in Ukraine which has been a US vassal state since the coup of 2014 at the latest; the Russian withdrawal is anything but a liberation.[96]
• It isn't an allegation, it's a description of the truth. Ask Victoria Nuland.[97]

Statements that Ukraine is a “vassal state” or “external control” are false.[98][99][100][101]

These conspiracy theories are also harmful. Delegitimization of Ukraine as a state and a nation is part of the Russian Federation’s propaganda. See, e.g., Disinformation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Delegitimization of Ukraine as a nation and state. Tropes of “Ukraine is under external control by the US,” and such, are part of denial of the existence of Ukrainians and the right of Ukraine to exist, and allegations that Ukrainians are really Russians under US control, which have been cited as elements of incitement to genocide by the Russian government.[102]

Comments legitimizing Russian conquest of Ukraine as “liberation” over the background of a war of aggression that has seen millions suffer, killed tens of thousands, and could get worse before it gets better are also encouragement and glorification of mass violence.

Editors should not feel free to casually indulge in what can be construed as hate speech. The rest of us should not be exposed to it. The remarks should be removed.  —Michael Z. 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Keith-264 is wrong, but I don't think that being wrong is necessarily equivalent to hate speech. We need to not dilute the severity of what hate speech is by categorizing everything someone says that is wrong (even really wrong, as pretty much everything you note that Keith-264 said above is really wrong) as "hate speech". People are generally given latitude to argue on talk pages, even to argue clearly incorrect things, on talk pages, so long as they otherwise obey WP:TPG and don't extend into edit warring in article text, bludgeoning discussions, etc. I want to make clear, that Keith-264's statements are 100% wrong on these matters, I don't agree with anything they are saying. But I also don't think it rises to the level of hate speech per WP:HID. --Jayron32 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I can see Jayron32's point, and agree that there are lots of cases where being wrong/ignorant/unpleasant is not a policy violation. In this case, though, I think Michael is correct. After nine months of Russian aggression, including numerous massacres of Ukrainian civilians, bombardment of Ukrainian cities, millions of Ukrainians made refugees, the vile propaganda lies Keith-264 spread to justify these war crimes certainly seem to not only equal but surpass most cases of hate speech. Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It implies support, or at the very least a tacit acceptance, of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. If it's not hate speech, then it's something of equal severity. Regardless, it's highly inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The comments were made in a discussion about content and style related to the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and directed specifically to editing within the subject area. This article is subject to WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe and the Baltics, broadly construed) and WP:GS/RUSUKR.  —Michael Z. 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make it hate speech. Vassal state: "A vassal state is any state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire". The assertion here (provocatively stated) is not that Ukraine is not a legitimate or independent state but that it has become dependent on US support. That is a defensive position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect interpretation, not only of the specific anti-Ukrainian propaganda libel, but even of your own quoted definition.

Why debate whether it’s technically “hate speech”? Instead please apply disciplinary action on an editor that has committed speech that several of us see as wrong, inappropriate, and possibly hate speech in a subject area under discretionary sanctions? It violates behaviour guidelines in a zero-tolerance subject area.  —Michael Z. 20:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This is political harassment of the most flagrant nature. I am condemned by a judge, jury and executioners ("several of us") for having a different opinion of what constitutes facts. Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any case here. Mzajac essentially wants to censor a user with whom he has a factual disagreement. One may agree or disagree with Keith-264's statement, but Mzajac's own comment in the same thread trying to pin Keith-264 with "genocide incitement" is arguably much less constructive for the sake of the debate. I don't see, at least anywhere cited or linked above, that Keith-264 would have talked about the "Russian conquest of Ukraine as “liberation”". Rather seems he had questioned the use of the loaded term 'Liberation' for the article title 'Liberation of Kherson', which is a pretty legit concern. 'Liberation' and 'Occupation' are both problematic terms in armed conflicts, because liberation for some means occupation for others and vice versa. --Soman (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's dumb, it's propagandist, but not "hate speech," which by labeling as such actually risks the very sanctions you wish seen imposed on him, Mzajac *** During the Yom Kippur War, after the US replaced the French as Israel's main weapons giver, Israel would expend all of its ammo during the day to virtual depletion, then the two opposing sides would take a few hrs breather...

During that breather, American C-130 Hercules would land with ordinates, Israel would re-arm, and they'd all have another go at it. For days and days. Had those planes stopped landing, Israel would be done and/or nukes. I think Ukraine is in a better position than Israel was if the US+adjecents were to halt the pipeline for, say, a day or two or weeks (but and/or nukes, again).

Obviously, like many of its neighbors, Ukraine switched from Russia's orbit to an American one (in 2014, when Yanukovych was overthrown). I would call it an imperialist-dependent country, like Israel and many other countries are today, but mind you, that's commie speak. In centrist terminology, I suppose one could call Ukraine a buffer or even client state — though, admittedly, calling it that could be seen as bad for morale, especially when Russian desperation leads them to conduct warfare through war crimes. But regardless, the point is that calling it a vassal state is archaic, irrelevant, and as mentioned, just plain stupid (and a bit disconcerting). But it isn't a "hate crime," which is a different animal altogether. El_C 22:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree but as a side note, it doesn't really sound centrist or mainstream based on the RS I read, to call Ukraine a client state - that is what Tucker Carlson calls it[103][104] I believe line is that Ukraine is a flawed but democratic state that happens to be getting a lot of aid from the United States, France, etc., in what might reasonably be called a proxy conflict. Ukraine has applied to join EU and NATO IIRC, and most Ukrainians expect their country to join last I heard. Andre🚐 22:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, Tucker is pro-Putin, just like his buddy Kanye, so obviously he'd go for the reverse (i.e. a client rather than a buffer state ←reflected on that page btw). But democracy is an amorphic thing, I don't really play with that. And speaking of which, wouldn't I be arrested in Ukraine for my political beliefs? Didn't they outlaw being a commie? I might be thinking of a different country, though. Either way, not a vassal state, not hate speech — disputants need to dial it back. El_C 23:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is not a flawed democracy; the United States is a flawed democracy. See Democracy Index. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither country is a democracy, Ukraine ceased to be one after the putsch in 2014 and the US (like Britain) has never been one, they're oligarchic republics. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so we see where you're coming from, and why you have trouble making NPOV edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have oligarchs. We have benevolent billionaires. Oligarchs are what the other countries have. Huge difference, very key to remember. Parabolist (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you put that rather well. Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The "benevolent billionaires" can be democratically removed - dictatorial oligarchs where free speech has been killed off, not so much. DeCausa (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pushing fringe conspiracy theories in discussions is disruptive. When one pushes them to make Russian war crimes sound acceptable in discussions regarding articles subject to discretionary sanctions with impunity, then their disruptiveness is out of control. When like-minded fringe figures pop out of the woodwork and try to normalize their opinions in a disciplinary discussion, there is evidence of a systemic problem in Wikipedia administration.  —Michael Z. 15:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, in fairness, you are one of the few admins I've ever WP:TBAN'd (on Kyiv, now expired), a sanction imposed long before the Russian invasion (btw, there are many, though not me, who think an admin should not remain one with discretionary sanctions on their record). So, I'd submit that your conduct when it comes to Ukraine-anything is and has been subpar. This isn't to excuse Keith-264's nonsense (i.e. the Viceroy is busy), but it is a double-edged sword nevertheless. El_C 17:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice non-accusation accusation, @El C. Is this just innuendo, or are you actually accusing me of something now?  —Michael Z. 17:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not innuendo, Mzajac, these are plain facts. Which you should probably reflect on rather deflect from. El_C 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Is my two-year-old TBAN intended to be an albatross to be carried around my neck forever? If you’re going to bring it up along with an inappropriate short political essays about Ukraine, and politically biased disinformation (“wouldn’t I be arrested in Ukraine for my political beliefs”: no), perhaps I should appeal it.  —Michael Z. 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I might be thinking of a different country — but I just looked and Ukraine did outlaw the Communist Party,[105] so maybe that was it? Anyway, you wanna appeal a sanction that had consensus at WP:AE (I only closed that complaint, as I was doing with 80 percent of all AE reports for like a year), and more importantly, a sanction that had already expired? Sure, go for it. Zero reflection, still, I see. Oh well. El_C 18:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious labelling, self-serving inferences and sloganeering helps no-one. I'm bored with the name-calling from people who are supposed to set a good example so I grant everyone else the last word. Bye. Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 is repeating another falsehood about Ukraine, its democracy, and a juicy Germanic-sounding “putsch.”

Putin’s pal Yanukovych brought Ukraine’s Democracy Index rating down from 6.30 (flawed democracy) to 5.94 (hybrid régime) in 2011, the year after he was elected. The rating dropped every year he was in office, hitting a low of 5.42 in 2014, when he passed unconstitutional “dictatorship laws,” presiding over the murder of 100 protestors, and was removed from office by the elected parliament with his own party members holding the deciding majority. It has been higher ever since. In 2021 Ukraine scored poorly in DI’s functioning of government category (where DI cites the effect of “direct military threat” from Russia), but a healthy 8.25 in electoral process and pluralism and a decent 6.67 in political participation.

Russia, controlled by a small group of siloviki since the end of the twentieth century is an oligarchy. The rich so-called oligarkhy don’t control government in either Ukraine nor in Russia.

Literally tendentious labelling, self-serving inferences, and sloganeering. Actually trying to distract from his behaviour by turning this into an argument about content, but his argument is based on disinfo. Please don’t fall into that vortex.  —Michael Z. 17:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Question

Is this a subject under discretionary sanctions? If so, why has Keith-264 not already been blocked, if only on the basis of his behavior in this discussion? Is someone going to have to propose a community ban to get anything done about this disruptive editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is: WP:ARBEE. But someone? You are someone, BMK. But "block" rather than a WP:TBAN, why? Also, maybe quote their offending comment/s directly...? There's a lot of text in this thread. So try to be specific, even if a little bit. But probably community ban, unless a clearer report is filed at WP:AE. Because this discussion seems too disorganized at this point.

But proving hate speech, as the OP (Michael) had claimed, was rejected by all reviewing admins who had commented here. And my point was that if there was consensus at WP:AE to TBAN him back before the Russian invasion, one could only imagine how fraught it might be now when, as I mention, Russian desperation leads them to conduct warfare through war crimes.

So, strive for balance, even and especially when it's uncomfortable. Even and especially as most of us, myself included, support the people of Ukraine against Russian atrocities. To expand more on your question: ARBEE does cover Russia and Ukraine, the Baltics, the Balkans (maybe also WP:ARBMAC, who can tell?), all of Eastern Europe, and some of Central Europe. HTH. El_C 20:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, hate speech is a non-starter. And yes, I am someone, but there are many someones editing Wikipedia, and I am far from the most beloved of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm someone else! El_C 20:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any past DS warnings for Keith on their talk page, and looking through their recent contributions, I don't even see any activity related to the Russo-Ukraine War other than the brief aside at a MOS guideline discussion that Michael has brought here, so procedurally there is no basis for an admin to issue a DS ban. In the absence of concrete diffs showing how their behavior in that discussion was consistently tendentious, I'm disinclined to consider a community ban. Some of Keith's comments about politics in this discussion would be problematic to insert directly into an article, but I'm not seeing anything so out of line that it would preclude the ability to contribute constructively (and pretty much all of them are in direct response to other editors making similar statements). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the real question should be: Will this come to any sort of productive end? Could we just close this, monitor them, and send them back here to the WP:HAPPYPLACE if they cause any trouble? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

At the very least some kind of warning needs to be issued. Keith's comments are reflects of Russian propaganda as Michael has said and it is obvious to me how their comments can be offending to the Ukrainian people. I really don't understand why a political discussion here was necessary, this user questions that the liberation of an ethnically Ukrainian city illegally occupied by a foreign army with dozens of war crimes to its name is a liberation. They also question the independence of a sovereign state and call a popular movement sparked by the murder of civilians a "coup". Would we also allow someone to get away with calling the Warsaw Uprising a "coup" against Nazi Germany?

Personally, I don't want to see these kinds of comments on any talk page nor do I think they are capable of contributing anything productive to any discussion at all. And I find it scandalous that they are seemingly going to be tolerated on Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 12:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, your own comparison between the Revolution of Dignity and the Warsaw Uprising goes to show that inflammatory rhetoric works both ways. Just like with Michael's claim of hate speech or Keith's vassal state. So, how about we do the following: warning to both, but also to you, Super Dromaeosaurus. Let's not Godwin it up, even when it's hard. Even when the Azov Regiment and Wagner Group have been bizarrely a thing during this conflict. I'll close this report momentarily. El_C 15:50, 11 December 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.

TheVHSArtist

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

TheVHSArtist is edit warring in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut to remove citations and restore unsourced content: Special:Diff/1126824476, Special:Diff/1126827434. Can an uninvolved admin please block him? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I personally do not see what the issue is here - it’s common knowledge that the film the article is about is an adult musical movie. Last time I checked, the lead is supposed to summarize an article, and the edits made to the lead fail to do it. Information in sections of the article reveals it as such, and the lead it meant to summarize the points made below. By removing the points, the lead does not adequately summarize it. I intended to keep the AFI source, but to include the information gone into further detail below. TheVHSArtist (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @TheVHSArtist: Clearly another editor disagrees with your change. If you believe you have a valid edit, put it back to status quo ante to show good faith and enter discussion on the article talk page to build consensus. As for @NinjaRobotPirate:, AN/I shouldn't be the first step in an edit dispute. If they're not under a WP:1RR ruling, it's a little over-the-top to jump into asking for a block for edit warring after 1 revert and no discussion. Did you WP:AGF and reach out to the user to engage in any form of discussion such as WP:BRD? At this point, this is just a content dispute, not a behavioral issue (and doesn't appear to belong in ANI). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Right, because twice removing citations to a reliable source (with the edit summary "um, no") is just a content dispute. I should have started an RFC on the article's talk page to see if the article should be properly sourced according to film scholars or whether we should restore the unsourced content and keep it free of those unsightly citations. Clearly, the essay you've pointed to overrules WP:BURDEN, a policy. But, luckily, TheVHSArtist has deigned to allow me to add citations to the article, and he restored most of them, except for the source for the genre. So, I guess we don't need that RFC after all, unless someone wants to add a citation for the genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The snark isn't necessary. You can disagree and still make a point and I would respect your experience - I'm just telling you how it appears from my perspective. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Washington DC–area IP range has problems with competence

• 2600:4040:1644:E800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using an IP range from Arlington, Virginia, has been disrupting music, film and TV articles with unreferenced and incompetent additions.[106][107][108] Some of the disruption breaks into BLP territory.[109] They have been warned many times but they never respond. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting TPA revocation

Can someone revoke talk page access for User talk:64.231.216.31? User was abusing talk page before the 60-hour block and is continuing to abuse it. Thanks! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done by JBW--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and HelenDegenerate: It doesn't really make any difference, but just to set the record straight it was actually done by Materialscientist. My username appears on the current block log entry because the last change to the block was me increasing the block time. JBW (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:96.245.37.202

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.

---

Can someone please block this ip. They are leaving trolling comments about trans people on Talk:Elon Musk. Schierbecker (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Schierbecker: Blocked. SQL^{Query Me!} 19:36, 11 December 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.

Just block the /64 (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.

---

2001:4450:8398:4100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor was reported about a week ago (refer there for further context), and was blocked for a week. They have immediately returned to their previous disruption following the expiry of the block. It would probably be safe to block this /64 for a month, as it seems to be fairly static at that level. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Since it's a single user and the IP range is persistent, I've blocked it for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 11 December 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:Jai Vizag - NOTHERE

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

---

Jai Vizag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. BLP violation [110], incorrect edit summaries (almost all the time), disruptive editing, factually incorrect additions [111] [112] [113] [114], etc. Requesting an indef to prevent further disruption — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's a sock of blocked User:VGK Andhra as well. I also found User:VGK Vizag. Indeffed both of them, and I've semi-protected Andhra Pradesh as well since it seems to be their main target. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 11 December 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.

Requesting to block User:Hisowow for disruptive editing

User:Hisowow has been making disruptive editing on the Template: Dance drama of Southeast Asia Tellisavas (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you haven't included any diffs or an explanation of what makes the edits disruptive. Interestingly, the other editor reported you at AIV because of drama at Commons even though Hisowow has never edited Commons. Even more curious, the account is only 2 hours old. You guys seem to have some pre-existing drama. @Hisowow:, is your other account User:Truth and Copyrights? That wouldn't be a policy violation, but it's kind of weird if you're making multiple accounts to report people on different projects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Diff of Truth and Copyrights reporting Tellisavas 1. Sarrail (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Hisowow is his sockpuppet account. This user:ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง is also his account and he's been making disruptive edits on Mek Mulung article. Tellisavas (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Since when it is 'Malaysian'? Given sources clearly stated that both Mek Mulung and Joget are definitely not 'Malaysian'. Stop hijacking another countries' cultures and claimed it as 'Malaysian', both Indonesia and Thailand are older than Malaysia itself per see. (Hisowow (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)) this was his words on my talk page shows a personal hatred towards Malaysia and vendetta against myself. I am afraid of my safety. Tellisavas (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

He has consistently making disruptive edits and changing every narrative regarding the Mek Mulung article under the username:ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง and based on Hisowow's arguments shows that Hisowow and ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง are the same person vandalizing articles of Mek Mulung and also to some extent Joget as well. Tellisavas (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's something I can work with. User:ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง is  Confirmed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eiskrahablo. I blocked some others, including Hisowow, as suspected because they're on a different IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hisowow also filed the same report at DRN as they filed at AIV. DRN was very much the wrong place for a questionable conduct report by a sockpuppet. We get all sorts of weird filings at DRN occasionally. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

More Disruptive editing and trolling by IP user who has already had their block upgraded multiple times.

This is a follow-up to [ANI report] from August 16, 2022 that resulted in User:24.21.161.89's IP being blocked by Ponyo for "blatant trolling." The IP user's unblock request was declined by Deepfriedvodka on August 16.* Another unblock request was denied on August 18 resulting in the block being upgraded to three months by Yamla on August 18.

• On October 26, 2022, the IP user attempted to communicate with Yamla again but instead of responding to the question blanked the page deleting public front page evidence of the warnings and blocks.
• The user made only one more edit yesterday (December 9), changing the phrase "same sex" to sodomy on Respect for Marriage Act. This triggered a final warning on their user page from Wretchskull which brought it to my watchlist's attention.
• At that point, I brought it back to Yamla's attention, who decided to only block the user for six months for these reasons: Given the WP:LOUTSOCK and your edit, above, I have blocked this IP address from anonymous editing for six months. You are welcome to edit while signed in to your account, but you should expect a block on that account, too. WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. They appear to be a sockpuppet, as well, but I'll let Yamla speak to that.

• That was yesterday, and now today the user has continued to anonymously edit on their own talk page here and here making WP:PERSONALATTACKS, WP:BADGERing and casting WP:ASPERSIONS against me byfalsely and maliciously accusing me of "wiki-stalking" and "sniping" at them from a distance by posting warnings, AN/I notices and "hateful" reports. The IP user was warned 5 times by other editors before the first ANI report by me was made and has never stopped making hateful anti-LGBT and anti-Black edits on pages like Coprophagia, The Book of Mormon, Watermelon Stereotype and Killing of Jayland Walker.

My question at this point is when will it be acceptable for the total WP:SBAN that I sought for in the first ANI report be a reasonable decision for an administrator with that authority to finally consider?

I would also like to respectfully request that the last two personal attacks - here and here - against my character accusing me of crimes be deleted from the record completely. Kire1975 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"but instead of responding to the question blanked the page deleting public evidence of the warnings and blocks." just figured I'd clarify that that's not what blanking does. The evidence is still public, just in the page history. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we are at the point of WP:SBAN now. That's complicated a bit by this IP address belonging to a registered user, but one I can't name (and haven't named) due to checkuser privacy policy. Still, we could SBAN and I could subsequently extend that to the account with template:checkuserblock-account if I catch them violating it there. --Yamla (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Add this edit to the list of false malicious personal attacks/accusations of crime that I respectfully asked to be deleted from the public record completely. Kire1975 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilton Sampaio

Please protect Wilton Sampaio - referee in the current England-France football match. Article is being used as a football. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is already protected, The last vandal was autoconfirmed, if they continue they are going to be blocked without further warnings. Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Brings out the best in people, doesn't it? I blocked several stupid Francophobic usernames that were created soon after the match ended. Bishonen | tålk 05:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC).

I take it we lost. Nothing new. - Roxy the dog 05:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That depends who "we" are. England lost. The ITV commentators showed their usual bias towards the referee, claiming that every disputed decision should have gone England's way, so are probably partially responsible for what happened here. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

France were just playing better.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on that one. At least it wasn't ARG-NED ref! Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Phil, how boring. I didn't know that; I was watching some pretty neutral coverage in a different country. Fans expressing their feelings by creating accounts on the lines of Frenchtwats - and without even using them for any editing! — still seems extravagantly stupid. Harrykane123 did edit, by contrast — vandalism, of course ("we were robbed") — and I didn't bother with the usual softblock for name representing a well-known person... Bishonen | tålk 09:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC).

"Were?" "Wuz", surely. Narky Blert (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Greeks

Need some blocks. Was involved accidentally trying to view differences. Crazy amount of back and forth. Moxy- 23:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry... what does Was involved accidentally trying to view differences mean? EEng 00:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

See link above...and edit summary. Moxy- 00:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've fully protected it and informed both editors that they should now discuss on the talk page (and if the edit-warring restarts after the FP expires, they'll be blocked). Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you° Moxy- 00:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought at first glance that this might be an interesting discussion about Greek letter organizations on US university campuses. But no. Just more endless Eastern Europe nationalistic bickering. How tedious. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of that is more tedious than nationalistic bickering is some students' desire to join sororities and fraternities. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't follow professional wrestling? Narky Blert (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

problem editor on Professional wrestling article

User:WWE_Lover_Fan_Forever is behaving obnoxiously on Talk:Professional wrestling. Kurzon (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean this, where they remove talk page content inappropriately? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also engaging in personal attacks and edit warring (they're currently on 5 reverts on Professional wrestling, EWN thread here). — Czello 11:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved watcher of the article, there's been an ongoing series of issues, with either Czello or Kurzon right in the middle in most cases. I'm sure the microcosm presented here is good for feeding the usual ANI drama, but it would help to take a closer look before passing judgment. I'm thinking borderline WP:OWN. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article (particularly the lead) are often subject to edit warring from passing IPs or new accounts. I don't think it's at all reasonable to suggest OWN issues in following the WP:BRD process. — Czello 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

WWE Lover Fan Forever blocked indefinitely from Professional wrestling as well as its talkpage by Bishonen — Czello 11:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Self-declared sockpuppetry

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.

---

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

The basis of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

At Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#White_supremacy_revisionism_at_Western_world, an IP user opened a complaining abour a rewrite of the lead of Western world by Rim sim (talk · contribs) (most probably Special:Diff/1122765027), which eventually culminated in personal attacks against Rim sim and a long rant — the kind of behavior that got them blocked from Western world and its talk page.

Then, a new user posted an off-topic rant at this same section as well as an off-topic racial rant about Huns at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#List_of_Huns. And get this: the IP posted on their own talk page that they are the creator of this account. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Shouldn't this be handled through WP:SPI? Did you open one? ButlerBlog (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't sock puppetry. The IP editor created an account. And notified everyone that they were the same person. With no overlapping of edits. Don't go to SPI, this isn't against policy. If there's problematic behavior going on, address that behavior; not the creation of an account - which is what we want IP editors to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 14 December 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:Zack48588558 - disruptive editing

Zack48588558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Zack48588558 continuously advertises their YouTube page on Effingham County, Illinois, in which it was first reverted here (diff). Then, they self-promo again (diff) which I revert, and then they revert me, removing all the piped links and ruining templates, and again self-promo (redlinking all of them) (diff). I revert this, and they go on my talk page calling what they're doing their "job" while guilt tripping me, saying how hard it is to find a job and trying to find a job for Wikipedia. (diff). --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 02:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They were blocked by Orangemike --Jayron32 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User:CourtneySCalhoun

I have just declined at AfC, and requested speedy on, this promotional draft by CourtneySCalhoun. I was going to post a COI/UPE notice on the user's talk page, but saw that they had made a blanket statement on User:CourtneySCalhoun denying any paid editing. AGF notwithstanding, I find that hard to believe, considering their edit history and who they say they are, and looking at their talk page it seems I'm not the first one. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Maliner false information

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114, where I reported User:Maliner's problematic editing which involved spreading false information by using unrelated and dubious sources. User:Inomyabcs very kindly attempted to resolve the situation on the article's talk page, but whilst the discussion continues to happen, Maliner continues to add false information in the article. I don't want to start an edit war again, but it's shocking that action is not being taken against Maliner's edits. It's clear that he isn't open to discussion and does not want to admit that he is connecting two different things to alter the reality of a concept. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone please check the presented sources in article's text, this user's is not following the wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources and pushing his or her own original research. Maliner (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

and may I know who has given you the authority to designate me with the pronoun "he". Maliner (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a different preferred pronoun? It can be a bit tough to tell around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I always use they as a non-specific pronoun, it's how I was brought up. Was always taught to never use a gender specific pronoun unless the usage of that is actually important to the point being made, which it very rarely is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably the best way to go, and I try to do the same, but I am old enough that sometimes I slip into old habits. Always happy to be corrected, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is polite to use the user’s preferred pronoun if you know what it is. I installed User:BrandonXLF/ShowUserGender, which shows that next to the username in conversations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(blinks) There aren't many people out there young enough to be raised to use non-specific pronouns; it's a quite recent practice. Calling people what they ask you to call them is the way to go, of course, but the hostility of Maliner's response doesn't precisely allay the worries raised by the OP. (That aside, I'm raising an eyebrow over a newbie editor with just 52 mainspace edits declaring themselves a recent changes patroller.) Ravenswing 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been pretty common in British English, and local varieties under that, for a few centuries. It seems like it's mostly American English and Canadian English that's having a growth period over it. Unless the gender is important to the point, use they as a singular pronoun. Unconnected to self-identification which is where all varieties of English are experiencing a change and growth. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The article referred to apparently (without diffs or anything else) is Barelvi.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like this same fight has been going on for a few weeks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Maliner_false_info and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Barelvi didn't get any third-party input. JBL (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  And the basis looks very much like a content dispute, with bad faith being assumed by people on both sides. Can't you just talk about the facts of the case (such as whether particular names precede this movement) without making any personal comments about editors? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There's a section at the bottom of Talk:Barelvi (I started it and since I know absolutely nothing about the point at issue, I then walked away) where discussion has been proceeding since 29 November. Not always very civilly, but it is proceeding. Those taking part deserve credit for continuing to talk the issue through. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: @Bbb23: @JayBeeEll: @Phil Bridger: @Yngvadottir: Essentially what is going on here is that Maliner wants to present the Barelvi subsect as being equivalent to, or being the authentic form of, Sunni Islam (known in Arabic as Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah). For an analogy, think of the Church of England and wider Protestantism. The evidence of this can be seen in the talk page where he suggests that the Barelvi article be rename to the latter (which is just the name of Sunni Islam in Arabic). This is a very dishonest approach from Maliner as anyone that can do basic research on such a topic will release that there are a wide variety of movements under Sunni Islam. The Barelvi movement is mostly limited to India and Pakistan, with an extensive diaspora community. However, Maliner adds information to the article using sources which mention the term Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah since he considers it to be the same as the Barelvi movement. This is like an "Our movement is right, all the others are wrong" sort of idea which is dangerous to the neutrality of Wikipedia. SalamAlayka (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has again started removing well sourced content from Barelvi. Can admin help in this bad behaviour. Maliner (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maliner: Myself and two other editors have agreed that your paragraph is not relevant and is too generic. The removal of such content is not vandalism, and I urge you to stop this edit war. SalamAlayka (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is still going and you are repeatedly removing the content. This show your bad faith intentions to vandalize Wikipedia. Your actions are under moderation now as you are on ANI now. None of the participants is satisfied with your behavior per talk:Barelvi. Maliner (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Both SalamAlayka and Maliner should make a stronger effort to wp:assume good faith and engage in productive discussion. That said, I agree with SalamAlayka that Maliner is not just wrong, but wrong in a way that if not abandoned will cross to WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. Maliner should understand that, whatever their personal beliefs about this, scholars do consider Wahhabis, Salafis and Deobandis to be Sunni Muslims, and that Wikipedia follows scholarship. We also do not follow the claims of one religious denomination that other denominations are incorrect in their beliefs, and continued addition to articles of content implying this will be considered disruptive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma May I know where I have mentioned my personal beliefs? you both are assuming baseless faith about me without any evidences. What, if I will tell you a that you are a staunch Shia as you have written about Abu Lulu, not only you have written about him but taken it to good article status. You are writing about Shia sect that does not mean that you are Shia. Will you stop making baseless claims now? And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss sectarian biases at all. As far as Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP is concerned you should check the relevant places for reliable sources such as article talk or relevant pages, I am addressing it at relevant place. Maliner (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the following:

  • adding stuff like Bangladesh Islami Front and its students wing Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena have worked to protect the faith and belief of Sunni Sufis in the country and took stands against Deobandi Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh and Salafist Khelafat Majlish, which frames the Barelvi opposition against Deobandis and Salafis as 'protecting faith and belief'
  • replacing Barelvi with Ahle Sunnat (Barelvi) as if Ahl al-Sunna (= Sunni Islam in general) were identical to the Barelvi movement.
  • comments like this, where you say things like If someone considers Wahhabism, Deobandism and Salafi movement under Sunni Islam and correct in their beliefs then why would their speakers are against them like Barelvis, citing a source that in translation says The speakers said that Wahhabism-Shiaism-Salafism, which is a false interpretation of Islam, is contrary to faith and distorts religion [...] The identity and contours of true Islam, i.e. Ahl al-Sunnah, are being endangered and pushed to the face of extinction through Sunni claims despite being followers of null and materialistic doctrines and denying the fundamental aspects of religion, all in an apparent argument that, again, Ahl al-Sunna refers only to Barelvis.
  • your argument at RfD [115] [116] that Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah should redirect to Barelvi because sources indicate that the Barelvis call themselves that way, all the while ignoring that there are several other organizations and movements with that name, and that the expression in fact is, just like Ahl al-Sunna, a synonym for Sunni Islam in general.

  In short, your edits seem to be targeted at making Wikipedia adopt the Barelvi claim that they are on the only or true Ahl al-Sunna and that their opponents are not. In the course of this you are skipping normal WP procedures such as distinguishing between what we say in wiki-voice and what we cover with explicit attribution to partisan sources, as well as the normal considerations regarding primary topic at a venue like WP:RFD. I'm sure that you don't mean it this way, but it is disruptive, and it does need to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma Just shooting limitless arrow in the air will prove your point? You are free to assume whatever rubbish you want to assume regarding me as evidenced above. Need Administrator comment on how the sources presented below fails WP:RS guidelines per Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. In general, the most reliable sources are:

  Peer-reviewed journals

  Books published by university presses

  University-level textbooks

  Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

  Mainstream newspapers

  • • Ahle Sunnat-Energizing Faith in Rough times. Chapter 6, Book-Syncretic Islam: Life and Times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi By Anil Maheshwari, Richa Singh.
    • “In the Path of the Prophet: Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and the Ahl-e Sunnat wa Jamaat Movement in British India, c. 1870-1921” by Usha Sanyal
    • Source relevant to Bangladesh.
    • book by Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan.
    • Moj, Muhammad (1 March 2015).The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1-78308-446-3. Archived from the original on 7 August 2021. Retrieved 11 December 2022.
    • Dressler, Markus; Geaves, Ron; Klinkhammer, Gritt (2009-06-02). Sufis in Western Society: Global Networking and Locality. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-10574-8.
    • AbiiSulaymiin, AbdulHarnid A.; Aasi, Ghulam-Haider; Blankinship, Khalid; e, Ola Abdel-Kawi and James f i l; Ali, Hassan Elhag; Siddiqui, Dilnawaz A.; Poston, Larry. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 8:3. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).. Maliner (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Admins do not comment on content here, only behavior. They will not give you a ruling in your favor. And frankly, your behavior in ANI is likely to draw unpleasant results. I suggest you drop this and go back to discussing on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Block evading, IP hopping, grudge holding, ping abuser

I'm not sure what's going on but someone is hopping blocked IPs pinging people they think are admins (including me) to grind an WP:AXE about some petty dispute. [117] [118] then doing nuisance pings from different IPs after I asked them to stop: [119] [120] [121]. Can someone with advanced IP blocking / rangeblock skills whack this mole and turn off talk page access for the ranges to stop the annoying pings please? I am pinging other folks being repeatedly pinged by this person here so they know about the complaint: @Inexpiable: @TheXuitts: @Eggishorn: @Jayron32: @Mathglot: @Nil Einne: @MelanieN: @Citizensunshine: @QuietMedian: @Politrukki: Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just confirming that Toddst1's account is accurate, at least as far as my own experience is concerned, and that I appreciate Toddst1's ping here, but don't appreciate any of the IP pings being complained about. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Having dug a bit further, it looks like these are ipsocks of indeffed user Defeedme (talk · contribs) who seemed to have this grudge against Sideman, leading to this latest indef for Defeedme. Toddst1 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed and reverted the first one, suspected the editor would be back. Since they don't seem to be giving up maybe preemptively remove talk page access to any IP socks of Defeedme? Alternative could try an edit filter. Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was (apparently inarticulately) suggesting.

In the mean time, I've adjusted my notifications so I get no pings. Not a great solution but works for WP:DENY. Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Good faith student editor not communicating, adding unencyclopedic content

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

---

Hello! This new user is clearly operating in good faith, but they are not responding to messages or communicating in any way. RayanAbdallah123 is a student editor who has been adding material to social network advertising (page history). Unfortunately, much of the content they are adding is unencyclopedic in tone, unsourced or poorly sourced, and somewhat promotional.

Over the past few days, I have been trying to communicate with them via edit summaries and messages on their talk page, but to no avail, and they simply keep on re-instating the poor material without commentary. I'm not sure what steps to take next. I don't think the issue is WP:TCHY as there is no indication they are editing from mobile. I believe this is simply a new and inexperienced editor who may not even know that their own talk page exists. I'm bringing this up so more experienced editors who may have dealt with similar issues in the past can advise on what steps to take next. The user is probably just trying to pass their class and I hate to be constantly removing their content, but as written it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'll go add the notice to their talk page now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: the editor has just now responded on their talk page and I have left them another comment on what to read over and consider. Hopefully, this issue will not reoccur. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 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.

Revoke TPA for vandal

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.

---

[122] Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 04:00, 13 December 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.

Disruption on various North Korea-related articles

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

---

See Special:Contributions/!-("AceTheBold!"). User got reverted and put onto WP:AIV by a bot due to their edits to one article to write that North Korea is gay. They then re-instated a new, differently-worded version of this. After their 3rd or so warning, they've stopped doing that, but after stopping this, they decided to leave this unhelpful message on my talk page (the waifu template on my user page is mostly a joke, it says that Wikipe-tan is my waifu) and then made their only ever non-disruptive edit by, dun-dun-dun, adding a template to their user page that says they live on Earth.

IMO, they need to either be given a very final warning or be blocked. They are almost certainly WP:NOTHERE. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

AIV is pretty backlogged right now and no admins seem to be active. I've also been waiting for about an hour on action to be done against another vandal. wizzito | say hello! 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: They've "improved" their user page with a new revision that makes my browser lag when I view it. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it's laggin' pretty bad, especially due to the fact that they've added 861,441 bytes onto their userpage in one edit. Don't click it though... it'll only make it lag, again. Just showin' the diff if needed. Sarrail (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I restored to it a less disruptive version that is a bit under 4k bytes. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually not sure if they just don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or something. See here for example: [123]. They've stopped the weird "North Korea is gay" stuff but they now seem to have instead confused their user page for a talk page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting. #WP:NOTHERE. Sarrail (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

'Kay, they're blocked. I don't see a reason why to continue this discussion, now that they've been blocked indefinitely. Sarrail (talk) 03:23, 13 December 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.

Bolivia page needs repair

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.

---

Something has happened to the Boliva page. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it looks like a mess.[124]. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino It appears it has now been fixed. I believe it was an issue with the infobox. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Good! Then the matter is resolved. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:02, 14 December 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:비씨카드

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.

---

Can someone revoke TPA for this user? They've been using it to continue disruptive editing. Sheep (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Also FYI see the edit history of the user's talk page. Sheep (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry; it's been handled by Legoktm, with TPA turned off. Sarrail (talk) 01:43, 12 December 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.

Hate-based Vandalism of John Gaeta page.

Hi, This is John C. Gaeta .. On or about Dec 6 timeframe, my wiki page was severely vandalized with an extreme hate filled screed that attacks myself, my family as well as lgbtq and african americans .. and far worse by specifically labeling me as a member of a hate group (kkk) and much worse. To be clear, this has NEVER ever happened to me before. My new home address was also written into the page which I suspect was a way to physically bring harm to me or my family. I should note that I very recently moved to this new stated address and would assume that the # individuals who may know this info is very narrow. I have past associates who are lgbtq and have real concern that there could be a possible connection there. I have a serious concern for safety now for my family and I. I want to know the IP address or general regional location of the address of the attacker as that may be relevant to mitigating any future harm (virtual or physical). I was informed of an attack by a past colleague who discovered it and worked to repair the page .. Please contact me asap and let me know what can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yensiwtlad (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems the vandalising contributions are coming from an account called "John Geata" (note the misspelling), which seems to be a vandalism only account whi John Gaetach is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Similar edits were made by an IP. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yensiwtlad, I have indefinitely blocked the impersonator/vandal, I have revision deleted the offensive content out of the article's edit history, and I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. If the disruption resumes then, the protection can be extended. I encourage other editors to add this article to their watch lists. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yensiwtlad, we cannot disclose the IP address of a registered account. However, the vandalism started with an unregistered IP edit from 73.70.245.207. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I've emailed the oversight team. — Diannaa (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Good step to take, Diannaa. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yensiwtlad: if you have safety or other real world concerns about something that has happened on Wikipedia, it would be better for you to contact the Wikimedia Foundation who may be able to advise you on whether there's anything that they can help you with. As volunteers we can only really deal with stuff on Wikipedia which includes removing any problematic edits and trying to prevent such edits in the future. Note however, as Cullen328 has said, it is unlikely they will provide the IP of a registered editor except in exceptional circumstances like where there is a court order and in emergencies possibly to law enforcement. Speaking of emergencies, if you believe someone on Wikipedia is threatening physical harm, you can contact [email protected]. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm for more details. I cannot see the edits given that they've been removed. But as someone who regularly edits at WP:BLPN where we deal with editing concerns that relate to living persons, I will say the posting of malicious misinformation or attacks on people, sometimes with the inappropriate inclusion of personal information, is unfortunately something that does happen way more than I would like on Wikipedia as on a lot of the internet. The normal way we deal with it as volunteers is to remove these postings in a way that almost no one can see it a process which Diannaa started, and then monitor and try and prevent any re-occurrence. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Cyberbot

I don't know exactly what's going on with Cyberbot I. It's just going bonkers here on the WP:RfPP page. It's making changes and then reverting itself -- and it's done it more than 500 times! Is there a discussion about this somewhere else? Also, apologies if this is not the right spot for this sort of thing. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The last time the bot did that was back in April. All it was doing was changing the template {{noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}} and vice versa. No real issues. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See User:Cyberbot I#Snotbot. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Think the confusion is in how the page logs edit history. Cyberbot1 appears to be the only editor if you view history of the main project page. I'm guessing the human edits are on an alternate/ subpage. The time stamps show there are intervening actions happening somewhere. Slywriter (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You would be correct. The actual human edits are at WP:RPP/I, WP:RPP/D, and WP:RPP/E ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@Professor Penguino, Blaze Wolf, and Slywriter: Hello. The requests regarding protection go to the subpages WP:RPP/I for increase, RPP/D for decrease, and RPP/E for edit requests. The main WP:RPP page has nothing but maintenance related stuff, it also has few commented out statements including: DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. The formatting is enforced by Cyberbot. To make changes, please contact Cyberpower678. In short, bot is working as expected. Regarding the venue, it should first go to botop's talkpage, if unanswered there, then on WP:BOTN. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The revisions you linked are from April. Per the current history, though, it's made seven edits today (the same edit-revert thing that's described earlier in this thread). What it looks like it's doing is updating {{noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}} as appropriate (based on whether there's a backlog or not)... that is, something within the remit of its task that it's supposed to be doing. It may be possible to make this automatic (for example, using parser functions or Lua or something on the main page so that it automatically detects the size of the subpages and displays the appropriate template depending on what threshold they're at). But maybe not. Who knows? jp×g 02:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Adminbacklog also adds it to a maintenance category (and the other removes it, duh), which would be impossible without editing the page I think. Fram (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic pov pushing and vandalism

Lolamelody123456 constantly removes sourced content to push its point of view [125] [126], often secretly by only mentioning one thing they did in their edit summary to cover up the sourced content they removed [127]. This account is editing almost entirely to promote an ethnic point of view without citing any sources [128] [129] [130] [131]. 2A00:23C4:FCA6:A201:6809:8455:43CF:C4E4 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack by user Ethnopunk

Nobody should be allowed to write "you are persisting in your racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic anti-intellectual endeavour" at another editor in good standing. What more needs to be said? Maybe the edit summary "bigot" on this edit. Zero^talk 10:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

An examination of the editors contributions shows that following an attempt to editwar in this content in October during which he reverted Zero twice (breaking 1R in the process) and then myself, the talk page discussion here has descended into WP:BLUDGEONING a POV that at least half a dozen editors disagree with. The editor was let away with a 1R breach and subsequently continues to refuse to engage in a proper talk page discussion. This really needs to stop.Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The content of this user's comments combined with the edit they were trying to force into the article makes me think they have an axe to grind. — Czello 12:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month per WP:NPA. Normal admin action, not AE. --Jayron32 12:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Further attacks, proposing indef

After the report by Zero and subsequent one-month block by Jayron32, the user Ethnopunk continues to engage in some of the strongest personal attacks I've seen on WP in ten years, openly accusing several users of "Holocaust denial" [132] and even of being Nazis [133]. This kind of behaviour in such a sensitive area as ARBPIA makes me question whether this user should be let back. If they are, at the very least a permanent topic-ban from ARBPIA would seem warranted. (As a reminder, today's outbursts are only the culmination of months of edit warring and personal attacks in ARBPIA-related topics. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No objection by me. --Jayron32 17:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPvio by User:PhotogenicScientist on Hunter Biden laptop controversy after admin warning

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

After asking an admin for clarifcation, PhotogenicScientist was directly warned: "saying the laptop was Hunter's in Wikivoice is wrong and a BLP problem". Photogenic has now reinserted the unsourced contentious claim. Feoffer (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to remove an editor from a content dispute, isn't the best route to take. Would recommend this report be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur with GoodDay here. I'm not saying PhotogenicScientist is right. I'm not saying Feoffer is right. I don't care about the content of the Hunter Biden laptop article at this point. I just want everyone to stop trying to play "gotcha" with people who disagree with them as though getting someone punished because they think something different from you is a good way to solve problems. Stop edit warring, stop trying to play "gotcha" with others, use the talk page etc. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A well attended RFC determined that language was acceptable. That is a clear demonstration, along with the closure review, that the community does not see this as blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Though the RFC was closed by a non-admin account, which is probably not a good way for a closure on such a controversial topic. Masem (t) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet there was no consensus to overturn at the review. The way to handle disagreement with a consensus that was upheld at review isn't to then bring an editor filtering the RFC to ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the RfC and the review upholding it at AN seems to be a far bigger issue than who closed it. This is an article that already has wiki-lawyering issues and now an admin is inserting themselves giving warnings for complying with the RfC while also placing doubt on it's validity. That's way outside the norms of this encyclopedia. Slywriter (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Masem is WP:INVOLVED, but contrary to the OP, I don't read his comment as giving anybody a "warning." He was asked his opinion and gave it. That he's an admin is totally irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• By my reading, the RFC did not endorse any specific wording; it was solely about the inclusion or exclusion of the word "alleged." At the very least, people reverting to one specific version with the argument that that has consensus need to slow down. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely you agree that the edit complained about in the OP, which removed the single word "allegedly", is 100% supported by the RfC, and that editors should remove that word if it is reinstated. Levivich (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but by my reading the edit that sparked the current round of back-and-forth was the revert by Mr Ernie here (as he says below.) That edit absolutely did not reflect the RFC or any consensus reached on talk. Obviously a bold lead rewrite can be reverted for other reasons, but it's important to be clear on that point - edits like that are just all sides revert-warring over aspects of the lead that have no consensus behind them. Like I said on talk, my concern is that if that isn't answered then the RFC can become a Motte-and-bailey situation where the answer to a more narrow RFC question is used to support more sweeping conclusions than there is necessarily a consensus for. (More specifically, can we say X vs. should we say X in the first paragraph of the lead are different questions, and the RFC was very clearly written to ask only the first.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why was it the revert that sparked the current round, and not the edit that was reverted? The outcome of the RfC is that Wikipedia says it's his laptop in wikivoice. We all know how to change that: make a subpage collecting all the best RS and what they say, and post it to the ongoing RFC. Levivich (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the outcome of the RFC is that we cannot imply that it is not his laptop in wikivoice (ie. no saying "his alleged laptop" or anything comparable wording that would cast doubt on it.) That's very different from "we must state that it was his in the first paragraph of the lead." The latter is, obviously, a much stronger statement; given that the RFC for the weaker consensus to avoid implying it was not his laptop was already controversial, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that a consensus requiring that we state it was his laptop in wikivoice in the lead exists. That's the whole reason we're having further discussions for the exact wording; but people who insist that the RFC currently requires that we state that in the lead are mischaracterizing it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What? I don't understand what you're writing. An RfC that comes to consensus to remove the word "allegedly" from "allegedly belonged to" is an RfC that comes to consensus to state "belonged to" in wikivoice. I really don't think this is even an arguable point. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor is being warned for following the outcome of an RfC? That's quite chilling. Slywriter (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer you seem to seriously misunderstand the role of admins. They aren't "super users" in any matter that comes to content - their opinions hold the same weight as anyone else's. The way admins differ is that they're able to wield special tools to enforce policy. Which is why I explicitly asked @Masem if it would be a violation of policy beforehand, and if there were any actionable roadblocks in place. And nothing in their response seemed to me to point to a bright-line "don't do this for policy reasons." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, I am in disbelief that you opened this thread an hour after the last one (at AN) was withdrawn. And the OP is incredibly misleading. WP:Drop the stick. Levivich (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You should have reported me for this. I'm the one who restored the page to the RFC consensus version - link. Can we please not do this? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC was not about any one particular version, just about whether to use the word "alleged." You shouldn't revert-war back to one version in particular based on the argument that that one version has a consensus, since it does not. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s not how the majority of us have interpreted the close and subsequent clarifications. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your restoration edit, Mr. Ernie. GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the smartest editor in the classroom. Therefore, I don't know what Feoffer is trying to accomplish 'here' or at the related page-in-question, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article as a reader, knowing nothing about the topic and having literally zero emotional investment in the topic.

Sentence 1 featured an unsourced claim that the device belonged to Biden, but Paragraph 2 included a sourced claim that the device might not belong to Biden.

I don't particularly care how that contradiction is resolved, but some resolution is needed -- it's an embarrassment to the project for us to be serving a seemingly-selfcontradictory lede to our readers.

I certainly understand admin fatigue over American politics -- if I came to this article with any preconceived opinions, I wouldn't bother the admin community with this matter. But the current article fails our readers.

While I wasn't part of the Summer 2022 RFC, the non-admin closer has already acknowledged it was a goodfaith badclose, so no one should be citing it as a consensus.

New readers just like me will continue to show up and complain about the article's lede until we can provide our readers with a lede that doesn't appear to contradict itself. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is this? The RfC was closed. It was reviewed at AN and upheld. Any editor or admin who believes this RfC can be be ignored should be topic banned from the area until they acknowledge they will respect RfCs. Anything less is a disrespect to the processes that keep this encyclopedia running. Slywriter (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The nonadmin closer has acknowledged it was a bad close. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You continue to falsely claim it's "unsourced". There are sources cited in the body. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP requires inline-citation, and a review of RSes shows probabilistic language remains the norm. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, and I've done my best to squeak in a constructive way, I'm not going to keep harping on it. But I can promise new editors will continue to show up to complain about the article quality until the apparently self-contradictory lede issue is resolved one way or the other. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, recommend this report be closed. It's not accomplishing whatever it was set out to do. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

When paragraph 2 seems to contradict sentence 1 of a BLP, it's a problem that requires the attention of admins. I don't care which way it's resolved, but a resolution is needed. If there's really a consensus for sentence 1, then delete the contradiction in paragraph 2! I'm not a squeaky wheel by nature, I don't care at all whether the laptop is Biden's or not -- I just want to be able to go to Wikipedia and read a consistent story. Right now, the article's wikivoice is schizophrenic -- proclaimin a fact in sentence 1 only to turn around and deny it in paragraph 2. That's a problem, and no amount of handwaving will stem the tide of folks coming to demand a better article that presents a consistent narrative. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The RfC was valid, closed and affirmed at AN. Any confusion in the article is resolved by following the RfCs results. It's not resolved by wiki-lawyering methods to ignore a valid RfC. Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Per OP, the underlying issue is not black and white. Instead of accusing OP of wikilawyering, it would be helpful to respond (or not) to OP's detailed concern and rebut it. All views have been aired here at least once. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is 100% clear that you and others are attempting to contravene an RfC by any method possible. The rest is useless wiki-lawyering to further the effort to ignore the RfC and does not deserve a response as ignoring an RfC is the single behavioral issue that should be addressed. Slywriter (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The non-admin closer has already acknowledged the close was in error: there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments". To the eyes of a new reader with no strong feelings about the topic, paragraph 2 seems to disprove sentence 1. I wasn't the first to point this out, I won't be the last. New people will keep showing up to point this out until it's solved.Feoffer (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Their opinion is irrelevant as the community decided not to overturn the close of the RfC at AN. Any inconsistencies in the article are because of relentless, tendentious, and disruptive editing by those who disagree with the close. So it is solved and anyone claiming otherwise is willfully going against community consensus because they don't like it.Slywriter (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Slywriter here. I would also ask that admins block users Feoffer and JzG who continue to revert to the prior version before the RfC while its being discussed here and on the article talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Feoffer keeps claiming to be neutral about the topic. I'm not getting that impression. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we please have some admin support at this article? We have RFC consensus for a wording that editors like Feoffer and JzG continue to ignore. We are begging for help here. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't this whole happen two years ago? I remember it was on the news a couple of years ago during the election: how is there even anything left to argue about? I feel like there is some threshold at which it becomes a hindrance for the rest of the project. jp×g 11:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the community would like to at least answer why JzG should be editing in an area where they expresses opinion such as Special:Diff/1127019825 and Special:Diff/1127019942 which have no place on any Talk page, much less an AP2 topic. Slywriter (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Comments like that do not help in any way. Admins seem to be going out of their way to avoid this topic, and I don't really blame them. Unfortunately it has led to this massive time sink we've had to deal with the last 3 months. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As well as edit-warring against consensus Special:Diff/1127018647 and Special:Diff/1126877504. Slywriter (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The page is under 1RR discretionary sanctions, which JzG has breached. He should be reported to WP:AE. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@jpxg: There's renewed attention to the article for various reasons. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's still a political battleground. One side thinks it was a nothingburger, and the other is still claiming it's Proof™ that the current administration is corrupt & should be hauled to jail. It's the new "But her emails" / Benghazi for the times. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that analysis is quite astute, this is indeed the "but her emails" of this election cycle. And so much of the wikidebate about this article, and so much of the article, focuses on a nonissue, whether or not the laptop belonged to him, and as a result the article fails to present a truly NPOV summary of the sources. An NPOV summary of the sources is: Hunter Biden's laptop has nothing incriminating on it. But that gets lost amidst all the argument and edit warring about whether "Hunter Biden's laptop" means the same thing as "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden", or whether "allegedly" means the same as "purportedly" or "claiming to be". Some of us have been missing forests for trees and making truly foolish arguments. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If anyone had the stomach to review the talk page over the past 2+ months, they would find the valid arguments along these lines, but buried under a lot of nonsense. To put it in a nutshell, it's not really even a controversy any more than Benghazi, e.g. is a controversy. It's a false allegation about the contents of the hard drive and various RS reports that investigated the allegation about the files and found nothing there. The problem, however, with "HB's laptop" is that it frames the narrative in such a way as to give undue unsupported weight to the claims that the files themselves are all authentic original HB files. RS don't say they know whether that is true. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. And I forgot to mention in my reply to @JPxG:, the reason it's coming up years later is that Elon Musk released "the Twitter Files," ostensibly to prove that the government suppressed the news about the laptop by strong-arming Twitter into taking the original NY Post story down...

... buuuuuut the files released don't show that. They show that some of Joe Biden's aides asked Twitter to remove Hunter's sex pics/videos from Twitter (which violated Twitter's policies anyway), and that Twitter initially quashed the link to the Post story on their own because they thought it violated their "hacked content" policy. They reversed after 24 hours.

TechDirt has a good summary of the actual files released, and the conspiracy posts around it.

So that's why it's suddenly a big thing right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC was closed and was reaffirmed during the proper review process which includes a review of the close. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Al-Massae website

The official website of Al-Massae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Massae) redirects to someone selling cosmetics. Al-Massae's web address in a related page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Morocco) is similarly incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.123.48 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I confirmed and removed the domain-squatted url in the Al-Massae infobox. The one in the list does appear to be a news outlet, however, possibly Egyptian, but it would be better if somebody who speaks Arabic can take a look. I am also going to post the list at WP:PNT, since that page also needs other work but there are no Arabic-speaking regulars over there, so that won't solve this problem. Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed The old link at List of newspapers in Morocco ([134]) was indeed pointing to an Egyptian news outlet also called al-Masa' ('The Evening'). I added the correct url ([135], cf. [136]) to both articles. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikihounding

I had an incident of being wikihounded by User:Fdom5997 last year (December 2021, archived here). Specifically, it pertains to me trying to clean up or condense IPA charts of language pages, and their insistent that this is "unnecessary" (and also specially annoying or something?). I brought it here and it was resolved... until today, when they started doing it again. Only 3 incidents at the time of this message, so it's not a big deal yet. But this is a repeat offender, and so I'd rather nip it in the bud than wait. Eievie (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Final warning given — this report alone perhaps warrants a firm reminder to Fdom5997 about discussing changes and not just bluntly reverting constructive edits, but with the history as linked above its somewhat past the point of assuming good faith. If any other admins think this calls for a block/IBAN etc please go ahead — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 06:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not the content of the reverts that bothers me, really; it's that I got multiple rollback pings mere minutes apart. That means Fdom5997 was looking at my contributions listing, specifically looking for stuff to undo. Is there, by chance, a way to stop that specific user from being able to view my contributions page? Eievie (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

UNHRC talk page

I am trying to improve the UNHRC talk page and I have an editor who I have warned to stop reverting my posts. He refuses to2603:8081:6B04:5300:1102:5512:B8A5:136A (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You have never edited the UNHRC page. What is your logged in account? Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

See this above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_User. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hounding by User:Vlaemink and slow edit warring at "Mulatto"

I think that Vlaemink (talk · contribs) has been WP:HOUNDING me since Dec 1st. On that day, they reverted an edit of mine at Dutch people and also a similar edit at the corresponding German article de:Niederländer. They later said that I had claimed that the Dutch have no common history or culture ("dass die Niederländer keine gemeinsame Geschichte oder Kultur hätten")[137] - which of course I never did. Some hours later they started a slow edit war at Mulatto, a page they had never edited before. At the talk page, they said that they had been reviewing some of my recent edits and made all sorts of unspecific complaints including "to seemingly assume a racist-bias when people do not agree with you" [138]. When I asked them at their German talk page to be more specific, they said they were referring to the statement "If someone wants to claim that anti-racism is a personal bias, they should read WP:NONAZIS" on my (English) user's page[139]. Later, they said, "It is you who has pushed the claim, that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages"[140], again something that I never claimed and see as a gross misrepresentation of my view. They also listed all the reverts I made at the lead of Mulatto on my personal talk page, claiming that I had been edit warring and should "try to be more constructive and self-reflective". Also a bit too personal: "As you claim to be a priest, perhaps Luke 6:41 merits some revisiting."[141]. I'm convinced that all my reverts were justified, since I reverted to status quo, once even undoing my own changes[142]. Finally, they complained with an admin[143] about this edit of mine at Canaan, a page they had never edited before, either.

They have also been conducting a slow edit war at Mulatto, making 4 reverts over a period of several days:

• 18:05, 1 Dec[144]
• 14:46, 10 Dec[145], after which I gave them this warning on their talk page and asked an admin about their views on the content question. Please note that I didn’t revert again before a second user had declared their support for my preferred version.
• 9:17, 11 Dec[146]. Because they also grossly misrepresented my position (see above), I sent them this warning.
• 14:28, 12 Dec[147]. Note that they made this revert after they took part in the RfC I had started at Talk:Mulatto#RfC_on_the_addition_of_"in_English"_to_the_lead_section. I will not revert again on Mulatto before this case is decided or archived. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are afraid of hounding, why did you seek him out on the German Wikipedia to talk about the article Mulatto here? And for a slow edit war you need two parties, one of them is you. But you prefer to bang on while an RFC is running about the subject in dispute. The Banner talk 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't talk about the article Mulatto on the German WP, but asked them in polite forms to be more explicit regarding their complaints. Since these complaints were not about content, but about (my) behaviour, I didn't want to do it on the article's talk page. Since they are more active on the German WP, and since I'm a native German speaker, I thought that would be easier for both of us. As mentioned above, they had previously also reverted me on the German WP. True, that an edit war needs two parties, but still I think I had the right to return to status quo. It was me who started the RfC, and I didn't touch the article after starting the RfC. Admittedly, I reverted to status quo (at 09:12, 12 Dec)[148] just before starting the RfC (at 09:14, 12 Dec), and I think that was correct. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this user when made a peculiar edit to Dutch people, deleting a supposedly unreference sentence from the lead which stated the Dutch share a common culture history even though the article touches this in depth. As one often does when noticing a strange edit from an unknown user, I looked into his contributions; which led me to a discussion on Talk:Mulatto, where I commented on the way he communicated with other users, suggesting a less accusative and confronting style might yield better results.

As others have noted, it was Rsk6400 who contacted me on my German talk page; asking me to specify this comment as he felt somewhat uneasy in English. This is what I replied (the translation is my own, but German speakers are free to edit it if they feel it is incorrect):

 Ihr Kommunikationsstil beim englischsprachigen Wikipedia erscheint mir gelegentlich als etwas anklagend und aggressiv, unter anderem weil Sie (soweit ich sagen kann) regelmäßig eine Diskussion anfangen mit dem Zitieren der Wikipedia-Richtlinien. Man ist selbstverständlich frei es so zu machen, aber damit riskiert man auch, dass man für manchen eher rüberkommt als Polizist kommt statt Gesprächspartner. Zudem haben Sie auf Ihre persönliche Seite den Satz „If someone wants to claim that anti-racism is a personal bias, they should read WP:NONAZIS“ geschrieben. Nun, dass würde ich persönlich als konfrontativ empfinden und obwohl Sie es natürlich nicht so meinen, könnte ich mir vorstellen, dass manche Leute diese Aussage als „Also, wenn ich nicht mit Ihnen einverstanden bin, sei ich ein Nazi?“ interpretieren könnten. Natürlich, es gibt Menschen auf Wikipedia, die dem Nationalsozialismus oder völkischen Phantasien zuzustimmen. Ist aber eine kleine Minderheit und diese Figuren werden oft ziemlich schnell demaskiert. Deswegen haben ich auch WP:AGF angedeutet, denn die meiste Benutzer versuchen diese Enzyklopädie besser zu machen als sie sie gefunden haben. Diese Unsicherheit bei der Kommunikation in einer anderen Sprache erkenne ich, vielleicht verschwindet damit auch manchmal die Nuance. Auf Deutsch bei mir schon.
 

 Your style of communicating on the English-language Wikipedia, to me personally, sometimes appears to be somewhat accusative and aggressive, among other things because you (as far as I can tell) regularly start a discussion by quoting Wikipedia guidelines. One is of course free to do so, but by doing so you also risk coming across as a police officer rather than conversational partner. In addition to this, you've included the line „If someone wants to claim that anti-racism is a personal bias, they should read WP:NONAZIS“ on your personal page. Well, this is something I personally would find confrontative and even though you do not mean it in that way, I could imagine that there are people who could interpret this line as „So, if I don't agree with you, that makes me a nazi?“. Of course there are people on Wikipedia who espouse nationalist views or ethno-nationalist fantasies. But this is a very small minority and they are often quickly discovered. That's the reason why I referenced WP:AGF earlier, because most users try to make this encyclopedia better than they found it. This uneasiness when communicating in a second language is something I recognize, maybe it sometimes causes the nuance to disappear. Anyway, this happens to me in German.
 

I think the text speaks for itself and isn't particularly harassing.

Nevertheless since then, it has been Rsk6400 who's been visiting my talk page, telling me to respect WP rules and be more competent. This is part of the pattern I noticed earlier and led me to give him some friendly advice in the first place: Rsk6400 warns and sometimes downright lectures other users about behavior, that he himself shows. In this particular case, it couldn't be more clear as he accuses me of slow edit warring, even though I have reverted the page three times in over 10 days, whereas he himself has reverted that particular page a total of seven (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) times and counting.

That's really all I have to or can say on the matter. Vlaemink (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your translation as perfectly correct. But I didn't start this discussion because of that, but because of the sum of minor aggressions I listed above, including reporting the revert on Canaan (mentioned above) to an admin without even starting a discussion, let alone notifying me, grossly misrepresenting what I said (that's why I mentioned WP:CIR on your talk page) and continuing to edit war even after I started that RfC. I'm still convinced that reverting to status quo is not against the rules if accompanied by constructive behaviour on the talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Robert Richard Torrens

I've entered 3RR territory with an IP who insists on Torrens's "conventional" birthdate. You see, recent researchers (several references) put his DOB at 31 May 1812 while all the great biographies give him 1 July 1814, apparently something to do with being born out of wedlock. Other editors have backed away, but this IP is indefatigable — his latest revision has gone to the extent of deleting not only my carefully worded notes but others' as well. Surprisingly he has left the two links which, if followed, would might have dissuaded him — others of his ilk have deleted that as well. Short of indefinite protection, block or recalling every printing of DNB, what's a good way to dissuade this kind of revisionism ? Doug butler (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) According to my experience: You can give a link to the discussion in your edit summary, e.g. "See Talk:Robert_Richard_Torrens#Year_of_Birth", but basically you have to keep the page on your watchlist and revert when you are convinced that a change is against the sources. 3RR is the red line forbidding more than three reverts in 24 hours, which you didn't even come close to (making 2 reverts in 24 hours). I think you already saw that another editor supported you, reverting the IP again. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Elmenhorster

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.

---

Edit-warring across multiple pages, after warnings:

• at Heinrich Reuss: [149] [150] [151] [152]
• at Mikhail Fridman: [153] [154] [155] [156]

Whitewashing antisemitism at multiple articles:

• [157] [158] [159]

combined with Jew-tagging:

• [160]

I opened a thread on the EW noticeboard but unfortunately it has not received administrator attention. I request an indefinite block. It seems likely to me that this IP is the same person, if an administrator with the relevant goggles feels that is relevant. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster persists in edit warring and has apparently also engaged in WP:LOGOUT (see this revert). The editor seems to also acknowledge an extensive history of editing before this account's registration, inclining me to believe they might also be a sock. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I acknowledge it right here, see below. I first edited Wikipedia around 2008 and have probably "Jew-tagged" several hundred Lithuanian Jews, including Littauer of Harvard (imagine that!). Elmenhorster (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

How come it's only you and JBL doing the fact-twisting, name-calling and false reporting? Reuss and Fridman Talk pages are meanwhile alive with actual discussion where I don't appear even remotely as unconstructive as you would like to smear me. Meanwhile your and JBL's name-calling is there for everyone to see. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

False accusation and complete refusal to engage on article Talk page.

Mikhail Fridman edit stands.

Reuss edit stands.

No interest in whitewashing anti-Semitism.

I tag Jews whenever I can as I'm Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish history is a life-long interest. I registered on Wikipedia only to be able to resurface all the Jews I've tagged so that I can come back and read about them again. Yes, really.

Is "Jew-tagging" even a thing? Is it bad? No clue, first time I hear about this. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because you reported but then did not offer much to back up your baseless insinuations? Elmenhorster (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster, if you require more evidence of your misconduct, I invite you to reflect on a few more edits: you accused me and JBL of "strong-arm" "intimidation" for warning you on your talk page with escalating and explanatory templates. This came after you broadcasted dissatisfaction with me on an article talk page–the absolutely incorrect place for that. In your brief time registered, you've done that before. And, even now, you refuse to accept reliable sourcing. Your conduct has gone from what I initially considered a tad misguided to openly malicious. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And here we have outright apologia for antisemitic conspiracy theories. Outstanding. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just to note that Elmenhorster has been blocked, but only for 31 hours for edit-warring, so this discussion on a much broader behavioral issue should continue despite the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Based on Elmenhorster's admission above, This edit is his, which means 61.102.171.6 was used by him previously to creating an account. There's nothing wrong with an IP creating an account, but that IP address was also edit-warring over issues related to Jewish identity as recently as November 6. This is not a new pattern of behavior. --Jayron32 15:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster has been indefinitely blocked based on CU data by Firefly. It looks like the problem has been solved. Thanks for the digging, Jayron. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 14 December 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 User

At Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council persistently (since 7 December) using talk page as a forum and now making personal attacks. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: You need to provide some specifics (i.e. diffs) as to what edits are problematic rather than asking others to wade through it for you. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but there's a bunch: and repeated, and some under new IPs. [161] [162] [163] [164] Sarrail (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The latest, reverting Sarrail now, repeating the personal attack and ignoring Sarail request to comment here Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Don't forget that posting a notice on the editor's talk page is a requirement, even if they're an IP user. (I've posted it for you now) My personal feeling is that as far as personal attacks go, I'd say "don't feed the trolls" and this user is likely to get bored and go away, but that's IMO. Clearly, you've taken it as an attack, which is your prerogative. There's certainly a case for abusing the talk page as a forum, and probably also evidence WP:NOTHERE based on their soapboxing/POV-pushing/battleground mentality (take your pick), and I'd support a block from an admin as a cooldown period since they are now edit-warring the article talk page to replace their attack. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it's WP:DENY, and WP:3RR. I'll take WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the IP starts firin' up again, a good block may be needed. Sarrail (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:12.247.3.42 is joining in, likely the same editor. I have posted a notice on that talk page as it at least has a record of prior posts. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by SPECIFICO, and continuation of generally unpleasant editing

SPECIFICO frequently exhibits WP:GAMING-the-system behavior with their edits, and is generally making the AP2 topic area an unpleasant one to edit in. In trying to keep this notice short, I gathered evidence only of behaviors they exhibit which are among the clear examples on that guideline of what not to do:

• Filibustering the consensus-building process by sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected
  • Consensus 1, and their edit against
  • Consensus 2 (RFC), and their edit against, right after the RFC closed.
• Using policies to prove a WP:POINT that they had previously emphatically argued against. Here they argued that 24hr-BRD was needed to prevent certain behaviors allowed by 1RR, and here's an edit where they "insist on their own edits, without due collaboration".
• Always muddying the waters in disputes
  • Encouraging tangents: [165] [166]
  • Not materially addressing issues: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]
• Often quotes policy in discussion (or edit summaries) without explaining why it's relevant [172] [173]; on the converse, they frequently claim "policy is on my side" without linking to any policy [174] [175] [176].
• Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a to support a view which does not in fact match or comply with policy.
  • Saying I had violated 24-hr BRD with an edit, nearly 2 months after talk page discussion took place.
• WP:STONEWALLING by repeatedly pushing their viewpoints, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution
  • Reverting edits, claiming no consensus.
  • Reverting edits, with insufficient reasoning.
• "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
  • Particularly with 1RR/3RR: “ never violates the three-revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.” [177] [178] [179]
  • Another 1RR case – sequentially reverted 3 of my contributions very quickly, after I had made a revert that day: [180] [181] [182]
  • And WP:CIVILITY: Various examples noted by participants of this recent AE thread

If any of the above seem like insufficient examples of this behavior, other examples could be provided.

I’m not the first or only editor to make note of bad behavior by this user; their behavior has been scrutinized multiple times at WP:AE filings, with plenty of admins making mention that their behavior is sub-standard to say the least:

• Poor behavior noted by 2 admins
• 2 other admins
• 1 other admin
• 4 more admins

Personally, I don’t know what should be done about this. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, and don’t know well how enforcement is handled. What I do know is that this editor is not behaving as is apparently expected of a member of this community, and that they’re causing a lot of contention that might otherwise have been avoided. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. IMHO, this should be procedurally closed. If SPECIFICO's editing is judged to have violated DS it should be at WP:AE. It's not at all clear that it has, though. A content dispute is a content dispute. "Encouraging tangents" or "borderlining" AFAIK, are not policy. SPECIFICO is undoubtedly an opinionated editor and has occasionally been warned as such, but I do not think this report has merit Andre🚐 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was directed to this noticeboard by an admin after explaining the type of case I was trying to bring. If there's no good noticeboard to call editors out for WP:GAMING, then why is it a behavioral guideline at all? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect to that admin, you also asked them a hypothetical question without details or evidence. And same admin had previously opined that a warning was due on the AE post you linked above. AN/I can be used for clearer-cut cases, which in my opinion, this is not. Andre🚐 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have a recommendation of the correct noticeboard for a filing like this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, short of an AE report, WP:DRN might be a better venue Andre🚐 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Entirely appropriate venue This is certainly not the first, and without action will not be the last, time that Specifico has been brought here for exactly this kind of uncivil behaviour. As Andrevan is not an admin, and was obliged to resign his former privileges in view of the unanimous acceptance of the case for an AE hearing for not dissimilar behaviour on his part, he may not be the best judge of the appropriate venue and whether or not it is merely a content dispute (which is evidently not the case). Cambial — foliar❧ 20:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  My case from 4 years ago is entirely unrelated to this. I have a statement about it here: User:Andrevan/2018 but it is not relevant at all to this Andre🚐 21:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• correct venue, should be addressed by Admins This is a repeated problem over and over and over with SPECIFICO and needs to be appropriately addressed by Admins. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Please enforce it accordingly. Likewise, Cambial, Andre's point stands or falls on its own merits. Keep it civil. Your comment is unwarranted/casting aspersions inappropriately. Buffs (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This entire filing by the OP seems to rest on a claim of stonewalling an RfC, but Specifico is not the only editor to call attention to the just plain bad close it. Even an admin, Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#"Belonged_to", has noted that the finding of that rfc has introduced a blatant contradiction into the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, Zaathras, read the whole case. This is more than just a content dispute over the results of that RFC, and I provided plenty of diffs which cover various content across multiple articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The crux of this is the Hunter Biden laptop article, with meaningless tangents like this and past AE filings sprinkled in. What this is, is throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Zaathras (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I notice it took you only 3 minutes to review the whole case and come to that conclusion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What you think you noticed isn't relevant to me. It takes little time to see that many of the diffs are either to the laptop article, or to events that predate this user's most recent Arbitration Enforcement case of Nov 20, 2022. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, I mean this in good faith and with due respect, but replying to everything in this thread is not going to be conducive to your desired outcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right. With the exception of that last one, I meant to limit myself to replying strictly for clarifications. Not trying to bludgeon the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• This would be a lot easier to read if so many diffs weren't three and four months old. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies if it's difficult to read - like I said, I tried to keep it as short as I could by focusing on what appeared to be clear violations. With regard to the age of some diffs, I've tried not to immediately jump straight to enforcement whenever this behavior was noted. Since it now seems like enforcement is the best option, I've had to search out some old diffs. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of your refs go back to 2020. It looks like you are citing articles that are already cited at an ongoing AE filing of which you are a part and appear to be impatient about closure. It makes no sense to add this in this forum while it is at AE. If you want (although I would advise against it), you can add this to the current AE discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, on second look, it doesn't appear to be open. But, this does seem to repeat stuff, including old stuff that has already been considered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's not forum-shopping per se since no active thread is open, but it's duplicative of the closed AE thread, and I still think AE is the right venue to report DS violations. This page is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." This is obviously not an urgent incident, I think we're obviously being presented with the latter. However if the AE of the similar leads to a warning I don't understand what action is being advocated for here nor do I see anything clearly actionable other than very contentious political argumentation. Andre🚐 22:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the AE thread-in-question wasn't closed. It was archived, with no apparent decision from administrators. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected: in which case I believe that thread should be re-opened so administrators can take a stance on the evidence presented by PhotogenicScientist. Do you agree? Andre🚐 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be up to Photo, @Mr Ernie: or any other editor who wishes to reopen it. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think reopening would be prudent. Thryduulf can unarchive or a participating admin can log a warning if they wish. But, the conclusion appears obvious and this has nearly the same effect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:BaldiBasicsFan and User:MariaSantanaSilva on User talk:BaldiBasicsFan

I had removed some talk page discussions from User talk:BaldiBasicsFan because I have concerns about them potentially violating Wikipedia policies:

• [183] - WP:GRAVEDANCING
• [184] & [185] - WP:BLP(?), WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK

I am mainly bringing this here to determine if there are any violations of the cited policies. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would definitely say the first one is GRAVEDANCING and comes off as extremely rude. THe other 2 seem like discussion regarding an article but I'm not entirely sure. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess my question is why did you go straight to AN/I instead of dropping a message on their talk page about it? Maybe dropping them a {{Uw-socialnetwork}} or some sort of nicely worded message to the effect of "you should read WP:GRAVEDANCING?" This really doesn't look like a chronic, intractable behavioral problem if nobody's told them to stop before. (Though the reference to Qualitipedia/reception wikis concerns me, as those are generally full of bad content.) casualdejekyll 23:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, both users contributed to Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki before Miraheze closed them following an RfC to dissolve Qualitipedia. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait Miraheze does RFCs? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They decided to ban wikis that use opinions such as Terrible TV Shows, etc. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

MESSAGE FROM BALDI: For your concern, this is my thoughts on what I think of this issue. For the Crec issue, I understand why you removed that message because of GRAVEDANCING, but as for the Silva situation, why even just do a report here instead of a message on my talk page like what another user said? Yes the sources are not reliable and I don’t wanna add unreliable sources in the first place, but Silva did give me questions I found interesting. Also I completely lost interest in Qualitipedia when it closed. Yes Blaze Miraheze does do RFCs. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Baldi, we don't want to add unreliable and unverified sources, given I just wanted to help to add reliable and confirmed sources at the pages and I used to edit at Qualitipedia, but I stopped due to QP's closure (mainly the wikis' founder, Grust was not happy with the wikis ended up, mainly with the wikis themselves having many problems), for a person like me who dislikes unconfirmed sources. MariaSantanaSilva (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that I could warn you for this. Also, I wanted admins' perspectives on this situation. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you thought the conversations were a problem, perhaps discussing it with Baldi would have sufficed. Schazjmd (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Erm. Could someone explain to me when GRAVEDANCING became a policy -- hint: it is an essay -- or a valid ground to redact someone's comment from his own talk page, which is not your own? Yes, gravedancing is rude, but if you dared to redact my own comment from my own talk page for just about any reason short of revdel country, I would be ballistic. What the pluperfect hell? Ravenswing 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is not constructive. Essays can describe why certain kinds of edits are disruptive and be referenced as reasons for blocks under the broad category of disruptive editing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  You can "reference" whatever the heck you want for whatever reason you choose, but that still doesn't validate an essay, nor provide reasons for refactoring someone else's comments on their own talk page, nor constitute non-specious grounds for an ANI complaint. Ravenswing 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are using this ANI thread to have an argument about something that isn't relevant or necessary to resolve the issue raised here. I will now withdraw, but I would request you reconsider your approach to this particular discussion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll have you know that I got blocked for GRAVEDANCING one time. Look at my block log for proof. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try. What you were blocked for was gravedancing on someone else's talk page, after being warned to stop, and after you were previously blocked for harassing the same editor by way of (funny that) repeatedly reverting him on his own talk page. It seems this is a recurring problem with you. Ravenswing 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we not do this? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion - @Ravenswing brings up a completely valid point: what you brought Baldi here for is meaningfully different from what you got blocked for. I think we should move to closing this discussion, because it's pretty clear that if Baldi did break any policies, which it's currently unclear if they did or not, they aren't going to get blocked or anything other than maybe getting a warning. Nothing about this report was an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and the whole situation could have been solved with a friendly talk page message. casualdejekyll 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain a little of how ANI works, TGD. If you file a complaint, your own actions and record are subject to just as much scrutiny ... especially (as in this case) where those actions and omissions of yours appear to be more disruptive than the ones about which you complained. If you invite editors to look at your block log, you ought not be surprised when they actually do so, and examine what happened.

What you do not get to do is declare anything out of bounds to our scrutiny, to exempt yourself from it, or say "Can we not do this?" upon realizing that you've shot yourself in the foot. Ravenswing 01:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It was more the attitude you expressed when you made that comment, and not the statement itself. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You know what I find hilarious about this issue? The messages you reported were from months ago. LOL! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making these kinds of remarks. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur. That sounds rather rude. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing Yes. Baldi did not break any policies. The above user was blocked for doing it on someone else's page. Baldi was simply just responding. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The Grand Delusion Baldi never made those discussions. They simply were just responding to those users who made them. So why are you making the thread about them, when instead you should ping the ones who started those threads, such as Logosfuture2002. They are the one violating the above, not Baldi. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

CartoonnewsCP "Good because he was NOT building an encyclopedia." If that response doesn't sound like gravedancing as well, I don't know what does. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Logos is possibly WP:NOTHERE, though I hadn't looked at their contributions, not Baldi. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's relatively clear that this isn't going anywhere anytime soon, can we get some sort of closure on this? casualdejekyll 14:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. I might have made a mountain out of a molehill with this, and want this to be over with. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have. You should be more careful when making threads like these. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing after final warning, inadequate sources at Cancer (astrology)

First 93.182.104.40 (talk · contribs) and then 93.182.104.56 (talk · contribs), which both locate to Turkey, have been adding material to Cancer (astrology) with either inadequate or no sources. Warnings about the sourcing have been given by myself and Some1 (talk · contribs), including a final warning. The editor initially engaged in discussion but after an RFC didn't go his/her way reintroduced his/her preferred version. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In the IP's most recent edits, they added this statement [186] then added this [187] as a reference for it, but the source used doesn't support that statement. Some1 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by SPECIFICO, and continuation of generally unpleasant editing

SPECIFICO frequently exhibits WP:GAMING-the-system behavior with their edits, and is generally making the AP2 topic area an unpleasant one to edit in. In trying to keep this notice short, I gathered evidence only of behaviors they exhibit which are among the clear examples on that guideline of what not to do:

• Filibustering the consensus-building process by sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected
  • Consensus 1, and their edit against
  • Consensus 2 (RFC), and their edit against, right after the RFC closed.
• Using policies to prove a WP:POINT that they had previously emphatically argued against. Here they argued that 24hr-BRD was needed to prevent certain behaviors allowed by 1RR, and here's an edit where they "insist on their own edits, without due collaboration".
• Always muddying the waters in disputes
  • Encouraging tangents: [188] [189]
  • Not materially addressing issues: [190] [191] [192] [193] [194]
• Often quotes policy in discussion (or edit summaries) without explaining why it's relevant [195] [196]; on the converse, they frequently claim "policy is on my side" without linking to any policy [197] [198] [199].
• Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a to support a view which does not in fact match or comply with policy.
  • Saying I had violated 24-hr BRD with an edit, nearly 2 months after talk page discussion took place.
• WP:STONEWALLING by repeatedly pushing their viewpoints, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution
  • Reverting edits, claiming no consensus.
  • Reverting edits, with insufficient reasoning.
• "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
  • Particularly with 1RR/3RR: “ never violates the three-revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.” [200] [201] [202]
  • Another 1RR case – sequentially reverted 3 of my contributions very quickly, after I had made a revert that day: [203] [204] [205]
  • And WP:CIVILITY: Various examples noted by participants of this recent AE thread

If any of the above seem like insufficient examples of this behavior, other examples could be provided.

I’m not the first or only editor to make note of bad behavior by this user; their behavior has been scrutinized multiple times at WP:AE filings, with plenty of admins making mention that their behavior is sub-standard to say the least:

• Poor behavior noted by 2 admins
• 2 other admins
• 1 other admin
• 4 more admins

Personally, I don’t know what should be done about this. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, and don’t know well how enforcement is handled. What I do know is that this editor is not behaving as is apparently expected of a member of this community, and that they’re causing a lot of contention that might otherwise have been avoided. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. IMHO, this should be procedurally closed. If SPECIFICO's editing is judged to have violated DS it should be at WP:AE. It's not at all clear that it has, though. A content dispute is a content dispute. "Encouraging tangents" or "borderlining" AFAIK, are not policy. SPECIFICO is undoubtedly an opinionated editor and has occasionally been warned as such, but I do not think this report has merit Andre🚐 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was directed to this noticeboard by an admin after explaining the type of case I was trying to bring. If there's no good noticeboard to call editors out for WP:GAMING, then why is it a behavioral guideline at all? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect to that admin, you also asked them a hypothetical question without details or evidence. And same admin had previously opined that a warning was due on the AE post you linked above. AN/I can be used for clearer-cut cases, which in my opinion, this is not. Andre🚐 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have a recommendation of the correct noticeboard for a filing like this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, short of an AE report, WP:DRN might be a better venue Andre🚐 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Entirely appropriate venue This is certainly not the first, and without action will not be the last, time that Specifico has been brought here for exactly this kind of uncivil behaviour. As Andrevan is not an admin, and was obliged to resign his former privileges in view of the unanimous acceptance of the case for an AE hearing for not dissimilar behaviour on his part, he may not be the best judge of the appropriate venue and whether or not it is merely a content dispute (which is evidently not the case). Cambial — foliar❧ 20:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  My case from 4 years ago is entirely unrelated to this. I have a statement about it here: User:Andrevan/2018 but it is not relevant at all to this Andre🚐 21:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• correct venue, should be addressed by Admins This is a repeated problem over and over and over with SPECIFICO and needs to be appropriately addressed by Admins. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Please enforce it accordingly. Likewise, Cambial, Andre's point stands or falls on its own merits. Keep it civil. Your comment is unwarranted/casting aspersions inappropriately. Buffs (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This entire filing by the OP seems to rest on a claim of stonewalling an RfC, but Specifico is not the only editor to call attention to the just plain bad close it. Even an admin, Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#"Belonged_to", has noted that the finding of that rfc has introduced a blatant contradiction into the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, Zaathras, read the whole case. This is more than just a content dispute over the results of that RFC, and I provided plenty of diffs which cover various content across multiple articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The crux of this is the Hunter Biden laptop article, with meaningless tangents like this and past AE filings sprinkled in. What this is, is throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Zaathras (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I notice it took you only 3 minutes to review the whole case and come to that conclusion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What you think you noticed isn't relevant to me. It takes little time to see that many of the diffs are either to the laptop article, or to events that predate this user's most recent Arbitration Enforcement case of Nov 20, 2022. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, I mean this in good faith and with due respect, but replying to everything in this thread is not going to be conducive to your desired outcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right. With the exception of that last one, I meant to limit myself to replying strictly for clarifications. Not trying to bludgeon the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• This would be a lot easier to read if so many diffs weren't three and four months old. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies if it's difficult to read - like I said, I tried to keep it as short as I could by focusing on what appeared to be clear violations. With regard to the age of some diffs, I've tried not to immediately jump straight to enforcement whenever this behavior was noted. Since it now seems like enforcement is the best option, I've had to search out some old diffs. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of your refs go back to 2020. It looks like you are citing articles that are already cited at an ongoing AE filing of which you are a part and appear to be impatient about closure. It makes no sense to add this in this forum while it is at AE. If you want (although I would advise against it), you can add this to the current AE discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, on second look, it doesn't appear to be open. But, this does seem to repeat stuff, including old stuff that has already been considered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's not forum-shopping per se since no active thread is open, but it's duplicative of the closed AE thread, and I still think AE is the right venue to report DS violations. This page is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." This is obviously not an urgent incident, I think we're obviously being presented with the latter. However if the AE of the similar leads to a warning I don't understand what action is being advocated for here nor do I see anything clearly actionable other than very contentious political argumentation. Andre🚐 22:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the AE thread-in-question wasn't closed. It was archived, with no apparent decision from administrators. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected: in which case I believe that thread should be re-opened so administrators can take a stance on the evidence presented by PhotogenicScientist. Do you agree? Andre🚐 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be up to Photo, @Mr Ernie: or any other editor who wishes to reopen it. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think reopening would be prudent. Thryduulf can unarchive or a participating admin can log a warning if they wish. But, the conclusion appears obvious and this has nearly the same effect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User continues with same edits without explanation

Moved from WT:ADMIN (permalink)

User Dogfog567 keeps changing the images without an explanation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia I have already gave him a warning about this and the user has been non responsive. It is getting annoying and I am getting tired of reverting his edits. Putitonamap98 (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98: Dogfog567 has a redlinked talk page. So, no, you have not warned them. Maybe you should consider doing so. Also, you are required to notify them about this discussion here. Please do THAT as well. --Jayron32 12:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at no point has anyone attempted to discuss this with Dogfog567. Canterbury Tail talk 16:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I warned him in an edit summary sorry for not clarifying

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia&action=history Putitonamap98 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Putitonamap98: Edit summaries are not used to communicate with a user. They are used to summarize what you are doing, not to tell other people what they should do. " Provide a damn explanation already" is NOT something you should be typing in an edit summary. You need to communicate with the user, in a clear, calm, and civil manner, on their user talk page, explaining clearly what the issue is, and what they need to do to fix it. Unless and until you, or someone else does that, then no, they have not been warned. Also, you STILL have not notified them of this discussion something you are REQUIRED to do. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked reverts notified the user so yes he has been warned I just left a message on their page. It's just getting really annoying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dogfog567 Putitonamap98 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA in Hunnic topics

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.

---

• Recent AN discussion involving Giray Altay.

Giray Altay (talk · contribs) is disrupting Wikipedia in multiple ways:

1. he is WP:STONEWALLING discussions, posting massive WP:WALLSOFTEXT: take these random posts over the last few days for example: [206], [207], [208], [209]
2. he is preventing content from being added or edited for no obvious reason (witness this thread about whether we have to include the name of a scholar proposing an etymology). When information from an additional source is found, he reverts under the pretext that discussion is ongoing [210], then argues that only the scholarly he likes should be included because Also, hate about talking about conflict of interest; and I am not making any accusations, but: Omeljan Pritsak was a disinterested Ukrainian observer; Helfen, Doerfer, and Schramm were all German... [211], and again [212]. He’s gone so far as to accuse me of a personal attack against his favorite scholar because I said that not everyone agrees with him [213], ”because other scholars do not share his basic premise” this is preposterous. It's just a personal attack against Pritsak. [214]. He also stated I want to include reasonable explanations. I try not to be lukewarm; but to be decided. There are cases in which the etymology is actually really doubtful. But in this case, the name is, imo, likely Turkic. [215]
3. he is unfailingly rude and demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and does not WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH: ''It is disputed, just as I said it would be'' but you didn't know it. You know it now. But you should be arguing based on facts not wishful thinking. [216]; Regarding the article, it is very simple: there was some content you wanted to get rid of forever because of some "Pan-Turkism fears" and I prevented you from doing that. [217], are you here to help improve the article or what? By the way, are you interested in Hunnic topic too? How did you find this article? It was created nearly 2 months ago so I wonder [218]; Curiously enough, you are the only editor in Wikipedia, the only page watcher out of 223 (supposing you were watching this page at all) who's jumped in to argue against me. Even more curiously, you jumped in just before @Obenritter made their fourth revert in a suspected edit war. [219][ The way you are trying to hide stuff from this article is so evident, it is ridiculous. The only thing I don't understand is why nobody is saying anything. The guy is literally saying those source are primary, old and misquoted. [220]; However, you seem to wanting at all costs to distort and mix the sources [221]
4. Regarding his assumptions of bad faith, he has twice spuriously reported other editors to WP:AN: [222], [223]
5. he is adding un- and poorly sourced pages full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to Wikipedia, and when asked to provide documentation for his edits states You will never get quotes for them. [224]. Elsewhere he argues I disagree with yours and Sernac's pov. By your logic we should edit all articles of ancient genealogies (such as the Arpad dynasty, the list of Chinese emperors, or of Japanese ones) and remove from them all information based on anachronistic chronicles. [225]. He clearly does not understand our WP:RS policies

It is my belief that Giray Altay qualifies as a WP:SPA. He only edits in the area of Huns and seems to attach everything he can find to them while also championing scholars who connect them to modern Turks. He is disruptive to the project and should be prevented from causing further harm.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear, Borsoka, Erminwin, and Obenritter: as other editors who have interacted with him.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC) @Srnec: forgot you.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So this was closed just over 1 day ago, with a warning to Giray Altay. How much of this relates to things that have happened since then? --JBL (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe everything in bullet point 2 is since then, as well as various other diffs throughout the report, e.g. [226], [227], [228], [229]. The diffs are generally in reverse chronological order after each bullet point.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has reported me after I myself reported them (1). They apparently are not content with how the case ended (2)

Never did they try to constructively edit with me for the sake of Wikipedia, but from the very beginning (2) decided they would be against me.

Not sure about the reason. An admin has suggested "sock-puppet syndrome", but I don't agree with them, because now the accusation has changed in just a few hours. There must be something they don't like with my username and /or topics of interest.

I was just saying to myself: well, maybe I can finally have a constructive, practical discussion with them at Mundus. Sure enough, a moment later I got a message on my talk page notifying me of this discussion.

This is not a "single purpose account". I set tasks for myself. The first was improving the topic of the Huns. Which I just finished. I was now going to focus on 5th-century Germanic figures, inspired by a more practical and collaborative editor (3). However, I was blocked for days to await the response of an ANI case I had to open after Ermenrich tag teamed against me with a bunch of his friends, canvassing and posting on public pages that I am a socket puppet mastermind or something (4, 5). Which happened just a few weeks after Borsoka (the user they just asked support from by pinging them) stalked me to another user page to find support against me (6), after their own AN3 case against me was dismissed (7) and they didn't get it their own way at Samuel Aba upon intervention by the admins. Giray Altay (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• These nationalistic disputes are really tiresome. Firstly DNA evidence points to people having mixed much more in history than the "one-drop" people would have us believe, and secondly etymology is completely different from genetics. Thirdly nobody who actually follows the science and reliable sources cares about such things anyway. Robert Burns summed it up well:

  Oh, would some Power give us the gift
  To see ourselves as others see us"!

  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I just saw JBL's and Ermenrich's replies.

  So, basically, you opened this just because of a discussion at a talk page?

  It's far too easy to take phrases out of context. Let the reader of this go to Mundus and have a look (and, ideally, let them have a look at our previous ANI discussion as well), so they may understand.

  Pritsak is not my "favorite scholar". The issue at Mundus was that Ermenrich, just as they are doing here, started to argue not to reach a sensible answer, but to prove their own conclusion. This is why they first argue against certain content in the article based on their own research and on sensations, on the "feeling" that certain things must exist, somewhere (Pritsak's etymology of Mundus is obviously influenced by his theory of the origin of the Hunnic language. He could have said it was from Latin and meant "pure" [1], he could have said it was from Germanic and meant "hand" or "protection" [2]. I'm sure there are other equally close matches to "Mundus", 3) (though they accuse me of making original research in the talk page 4). They argue for leaving out certain content when it suits them (Giesmus should stay out of the article (edit summary)), but then use the inclusion of such content to support their views ("Giesmus has a Germanic ring to it" is definitely an endorsement of the view that the name is Germanic).

  Though they accuse me of preventing content from being added or edited for no obvious reason, what I did was actually reverting their edits done as discussion, regarding such additions, was going on at the talk page, as stated in the edit summary ('Reverted to original. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page'). They did the same thing at Odoacer, reverting my edits and citing the fact discussion was ongoing at the talk page to justify their action (5). There seems to be a lack of coherence here. Giray Altay (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the records, Giray Altay's above presentation about our discussion with regard to Samuel Aba is not fully inline with the facts. For instance, admins did not intervene in the content debate. Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• for the record*
• My bad. I thought that the user who intervened at Samuel Aba was an admin.

Giray Altay (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Giray Altay should be explicitly reminded that talk page discussions, especially on disputed topics, work best if they are sourced. They should then be reminded that they are the only editor who has not provided an independent source to support their assertions at Talk:Mundus (magister militum); the obvious conclusion is that they're running on nothing but WP:OR which renders their snarky "You know it now. But you should be arguing based on facts not wishful thinking" rather funny. Nevertheless, they are a new editor—they've just jumped in at the deep end, and perhaps someone should throw them a life ring, instead of releasing the piranhas (I'd really like to know in what world a four-line paragraph is a wall of text).
• Perhaps it would help both the coherency and concision of their arguments if they had to support every assertion they made (on talk or mainspace) with a source. You know what, that's quite a good idea for a lot of editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• What four line paragraph are you referring to AirshipJungleman29? Did I include something wrong in the diffs? I think you can see that he posts long walls of text as a rule, consisting of several paragraphs. He also needlessly and rudely corrects Borsoka’s English above [230] as well as makes various unfounded accusations against me and Borsoka in his other posts here and generally misapplies and misinterprets Wikipedia policy . I don’t believe that Huns is normally a very high-stress, high-controversy topic, so I don’t really see why people keep saying he’s just started editing in a controversial area: there was little controversy there until he appeared.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ermenrich, I don't generally think that a ten line reply spread across four paragraphs is worthy of the reply "No one is going to join this discussion if you keep posting long WP:WALLSOFTEXT", nor that a fifteen line reply spread across five paragraphs is worthy of citation at ANI.
• "there was little controversy there until he appeared" is a dubious statement considering your assertion on 19 Nov "You're one of a number of a new editors who have suddenly popped up editing Hunnic topics ...The Huns attract quite a bit of attention." and the ongoing thread at WP:AN.
• In all honesty, I would be pretty pissed off if editors started discussing the likelihood I was a sockpuppeteer and which accounts I might be connected to while pinging me in the same discussion. I am not overly impressed, it has to be said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not what happened, AirshipJungleman29. I certainly didn’t, and I discussed the possibility of his being a sock puppet exactly once [231], [232]. Borosika, the only person besides GA to reply, also didn’t ping him [233]. Those three edits are the whole discussion of him being a sock puppet before he reported us to AN for it. So what are you talking about? Edit: forgot that I obliquely asked here as well [234]

As to ten line replies, look at the threads he has! He posts three times more than anyone else and makes it impossible to follow the conversation, as was already noted multiple times during the AN report. Look at talk:Mundus or talk:List of Huns or talk:Odoacer#Removal of content or talk:Attilid dynasty and tell me this is not gross stonewalling and obfuscation.

And there are sock puppets that show up, yes, but they tend to prefer more recent Eurasian history. I cannot ever remember as big a disruption the whole time I’ve been here, and I basically wrote several articles on the Huns here without any controversy whatsoever.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, You seem to forget [235], written five minutes after pinging them. When there are walls of text, you should cite the policy then and there, not waiting until another convenient time to post it and thus win the current dispute. Finally, I can't reconcile "sockpuppets tend to prefer more recent Eurasian history" (12 Dec) and "this topic is subject to a lot of sock puppetry and nationalist POV pushing" (18 Nov), unless the present tense is far more flexible than previously suspected.

In case I need to reiterate, I think that this editor should be explicitly warned to follow content guidelines, instead of jumping straight to conduct accusations of dubious quality. I think I have said all I need to on this matter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If I pinged them, show a diff please. Otherwise I do not remember doing it and I’m pretty sure I didn’t, AirshipJungleman29. You may have me confused with Erminwin?.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I did indeed; my mistake. Still, judging from the indentation, you had seen Erminwin's ping, and decided to make the sock-like comment anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29, at Mundus, Ermenrich argued based on his own theory, which relied on some Wiktionary's entries. That's not based on sources. But, they said I was making original research.

That is what I meant by ''arguing based on facts not wishful thinking''. They ''later'' did provide some scholar supporting Germanic origin for the name; but they had nothing when they proposed their own etymology. You cannot argue based on a "hunch".

I am arguing based on a source, which is Pritsak. I also told them that I need ''some time to see if I can find some other scholar's opinion'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mundus_(magister_militum)&diff=1126884699&oldid=1126883749 1]. We were still discussing at the talk page, but they nevertheless opened this tread at ANI.

If you look at the many Hun-related articles I created including etymologies, you'll see that I was always cautious and neutral in the recurrent Germanic/Turkic/Iranian proposed origin of Hun names. In this case, I am convinced that Mundus' name (a grandson of Attila) is related to Mundzuk, Attila's father (a relation of names that at least two of the three German scholars endorse). Then, Mundzuk sounds a lot "Altaic" to my ears. Even so, I am willing to keep discussing the matter at the article. I reverted Ermenrich merely because they should wait till conversation is over at the talk page before publishing their preferred version. Notice that I reverted the article to its original form, before either of us edited it. Giray Altay (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I had a "hunch" because I know something about this topic from working on it here for years, and I then backed it up with sources. The fact that you think Pritsak is right does not matter. The fact that you continue to insist that it does shows a clear disregard for WP:TRUTH and WP:RS, something which has not gone away after GA was warned for something completely different before.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

And you seem convinced that the name is of Germanic origin. We were discussing this at the Mundus talk page. What I don't get is, why coming here? As JBL noticed: what has changed since the ANI case involving us was closed the other day? Only Mundus' talk page changed, so the cause of all this must lie there. Giray Altay (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not "convinced" the name has a Germanic etymology - I have no idea. I just know that Pritsak never met a name he didn't think was "Altaic" and other scholars have different ideas, even though the article currently treats Pritsak's proposal as the only one, not even naming him.

I brought this here after I became convinced you were simply going to keep stonewalling to keep alternative suggestions to a Turkic etymology out of the article, with increasingly far-fetched reasoning such as "the scholars have subconscious bias".--Ermenrich (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop taking statements out of context. I said WW2 German scholars ''may'' have a subconscious bias, and most importantly that some readers ''may'' find three German scholars supporting Germanic etymology a clue for conflict of interest. Doesn't mean i believe that. But I also invited you to provide some Germanic etymology proposed by some more modern scholar ideally not German by nationality. Even though I believe the name has Turkic etymology, I am willing to include others etymologies in the article. Just don't publish your preferred version until conversation at the talk page is over.

And you should not claim that I used far-fatched reasoning to put my view into the article, when you are the one who used your own etymologies based on WP:OR and dictionary's entries to push a view at the talk page. Giray Altay (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm taking something out of context when that was your explicit reasoning for not adding it to the page. It's also specious reasoning. If you would stop tit-for-tat-ing and continually bringing up some thing I did/said that you think is just the worst and thus justifies whatever you yourself are doing , I might not have brought this ANI case. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, not a defense.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you have been quoqueing too. I am just trying to answer your points and accusations.

Maybe out of context was not the right way to describe what you did just earlier. But the way you say it (''keep content in the article... with increasingly far-fetched reasoning such as "the scholars have subconscious bias"'), it looks like I actually used that as a chief argument and that I am convinced of it; whereas I merely took note of that as an additional reason why we should try and find more opinions among scholars while we were discussing at the talk page. It also looks like a general statement, whereas my tentative ''observation'' only referred to German scholars writing during WW2.

You OTOH, criticized Pritsak, for example, suggesting that, because he has a certain general view about the ''Huns'' (not even Mundus or Giesmus), we should not trust him in this instance. As if, just because Helfen erroneously rejected any Huns-Xiongnu relation, we should mistrust anything he said about some Hunnish or Xiongnu individuals. Giray Altay (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stating that Pritsak has a view about the Hunnish language that is not the same as a majority of scholars is not criticizing him or saying "we cannot trust him", it is stating a fact which must be reflected in how we present his views in the article. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss article content disputes - you should do that on the article talk pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stating that those scholars are German and Pritsak is not Turk are also facts. It's all about how you interpret facts, whether there is reason to believe they influenced the scholars' comments. Though you now say that your comments on Pritsak don't mean "we mustn't trust him", it seemed to me you implied it at Mundus.

Now I also remember why I stated you made a "personal attack" at Pritsak. Wikipedia itself states that editors should not use a person's affiliation to discredit their views. That type of concept may be applied here. Why discredit Pritsak for his allegedly "discordant" view? Also, this article is about Mundus, not the Hunnic language. Like I said, ''if'' Pritsak's general assessment of Hunnic language is actually discordant, and if we want to consider this deserving removal of Pritsak-backed content from articles, then most of Helfen's statements should be removed from the Huns, since he was proven wrong by following scholars and science regarding the Huns-Xiongnu identification. But of course that would be foolish, because Helfen had his limits and was wrong about the ultimate origin of the Huns, but is nevertheless valuable for many, many explanations and conclusions, even those regarding the arrival of the Huns in Europe and their culture, so pertaining to their origins.

I also don't get how Pritsak's general view would have influenced him to ascribe Turkic etymology, since you yourself said he '''did not''' believe Hunnish was a Turkic language? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mundus_(magister_militum)&diff=1126661769&oldid=1126661713 1] Giray Altay (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stating that a scholar's view is not the academic consensus is not an "affiliation" or a personal attack - wp:no personal attacks is about discussion of other editors, not discussing the prevalence of a scholar's ideas, which we can and must do. Besides that misinterpretation of policy, the rest of your post belongs on an article talk page, not here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who was an active user on this topic, Giray Altay's activity is 50-50 in my opinion. Some good contributions like expanding {{Huns}} and creating articles like Hunnic art but also some unacceptable activities like posting walls of text plus ignoring both editors' concerns and WP rules; e.g. take a look at Talk:List of Huns. Also, this report clearly shows signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Posting TLDR content won't help you but they will make your case worse. There is nothing such as winning/losing on WP. You really need to read WP:OWN: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. First, Ermenrich is correct that Giray Altay's edits started off fairly combative when I removed content that was poorly sourced (no page numbers/just generic Google book refs)) and/or included "scholarly opinion" (relayed in peacock fashion) from one work that was over 65 years old on a disputed topic (Odoacer's ethnicity). This editor also outright ignored citation formatting even when asked to adjust their additions accordingly—at first. However, after some bickering back and forth on the talk page of the article and on our respective editor Talk pages, the matter was amicable reconciled. This behavior led me to believe that this editor has very strong opinions and struggles with objectivity. At the same time, Giray Altay did adjust his/her posture in the end. Ermenrich is right to raise a caution flag here for future edits made by this individual, but my opinion is divided since it appears Giray Altay is quite capable of constructive edits, provided some oversight is provided. --Obenritter (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Neither party involved is clean in this. Instead of letting things go, both parties have escalated this. Whether falsely accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet (falsely because the only evidence so far is that they appear to not be a new editor) and then doubling down on it rather than admitting their mistake or falsely accusing other editors of being biased against them due to their ethnicity (taking comments completely out of context to form that opinion) also never admitting their mistake and continuing to openly express it. This has really gone on long enough. In the close of the previous discussion Giray was warned for the majority of the things that were discussed here, and though not specifically mentioned, so were the other editors involved. Anything can become controversial at any point so that isn't evidence of nefarious activity. What this is evidence of is that there are some editors that need to find something else to do for a while and not interact with each other. --ARoseWolf 14:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Allright, I admit my mistake regarding the ethnicity-related accusation, and I apologize. Still, I cannot understand Ermenrich's motivations.

  I don't think that Ermenrich is a bad person or bad editor. I felt sorry for them when they opened this because I thought it might have not ended good for them or somewhat ruined their reputation (it is not irony, I really mean this). They could've at least waited a couple days before coming to the admins again

  I think Ermenrich is right to keep an eye for actual nationalists, socks. etc.. I hope all this doesn't stop them from keep patrolling because it is important. Simply, in this case they are mistaken.

  They are free to keep an eye on my edits; and should they find something that is actually cause of concern for nationalistic or whatever malicious activity, they should report it. But until then, just please stop with accusations. Giray Altay (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fully willing to apologize for voicing my suspicions at Erminwin's talk page and then at AN about GA being a sock, but I don't think that solves the underlying problem here.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a start and a lot more than either of you have been willing to do so far. @Giray, perhaps their motivation is they really believe your comments on talk pages are disruptive. Perhaps they really believe some of the edits you are adding are incorrect. That's why we must have civil and calm discussions without frivolous accusations. This isn't the place to discuss content disputes but in at least a few discussions you felt there was no need to provide verifiable sources. How exactly is Ermenrich or any other editor supposed to keep an eye on edits and verify whether they are properly stated without a reliable source by which to verify it? Can't the both of you see how things can escalate so quickly? A simple misunderstanding can devolve into a battleground full of aspersions and accusations that are not simply policy concerns but are actually damaging to other's experience and the mission of the encyclopedia. Can't you both see your own culpability here? Collaboration is not an option optional. Civility is not an option optional. Assuming good faith from the start and all the way through discussion until solid proof is provided that someone is not acting in good faith is a requirement to keep these issues from happening. It's central to the mission of Wikipedia. If we can not see that this entire episode, all these AN/ANI filings and talk page discussions are a failure on the part of many involved to adhere to that then what further discussion can we have that is not going to turn into a shouting match and eventually wind up back here? We can disagree. We can voice that disagreement. But at no point in our disagreement should aspersions or accusations be the central theme of our side of the discussion and that has happened a few times between the both of you. --ARoseWolf 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration is not an option. Civility is not an option. – Um, don't you mean "Collaboration is not optional. Civility is not optional."? EEng 07:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, @EEng. Even with all the years I still have not mastered everything about the English language. I do apologize for any confusion and have edited that portion of my comment. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. On a lighter note, I think we can all appreciate the humor of my stating that GA is using the tu quoque fallacy and them responding I think you have been quoqueing too. Et tu, quoque?—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, how is this not disruptive? Giray Altay is reverting any edit I or anyone else makes at Mundus (magister militum), including ones that have nothing to do with the original dispute [236], done with an edit summary that betrays continued assumptions of bad faith: Wikipedia is about reporting the scholars' though, not your own beliefs and disbeliefs and also on the article talk page Your constant edits on Hunnic topics, on articles I created or edited, seem to be aimed at making things ''Germanic'' rather than ''Hunnic''. [237], and You found Krautschik after reading Amory through my section at Ermenwin, which you cannot have read but by stalking since nobody invited you. [238]. These include a NavBox aded by @Mann Mann: [239]], a typographical correction [240], the addition of additional name forms used in the secondary sources [241], and other obvious improvements such as discussing Mundus's birth before we discuss his career [242]. None of these things has anything to do with the etymology of Mundus, which is what we are discussing on the talk page. Now he's even invoking WP:FRINGE [243] for a scholar I did not cite (see talk page "discussion" Talk:Mundus (magister militum)#Mundus or Mundo).

The community can turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior, but it's clear that GA suffers from WP:OWN and is not going to allow any improvements to this article whatsoever, under the excuse that "discussion is ongoing" (about something completely different). He's going to drive good editors away from this topic area with his combative, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are a liar ! EDIT , or have just made an unintentional false statement. And I have just stopped feeling sorry that all this will ruin your reputation.

You say: reverting any edit I or anyone else makes at Mundus (magister militum), but you and I are the only ones who recently edited at Mundus (!) (1)

And you are the one who keeps pushing their views (2 3 4, 5) though conversation is going on at the talk page (6).

Stop pushing your view, stop bothering the admins, stop thinking that being an older user protects you from sanctions! Giray Altay (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the diffs he provided of my editing (one of which is adding a source to the bibliography? [244]) and calling me a liar prove my point more than it proves GA's.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

To reply to their specific accusation:

A few hours EDIT about one hour after I, by my own initiative, discussed Mundus (and the undue claims that Jordanes saying he was of Attilid origin descended do not mean Mundus was of Attilid origin, which is supported by the vast majority of scholars) at Erminwin's talk page (1), ta-da, Ermenrich popped up at Mundus (2), and started a series of edits culminating in the addition to the article of the fringe theory that Jordanes' words do not refer to biological descent (3) (the one I discussed at Erminwin's), which, after my restoration to the original, since we are still discussing at the talk page, they pushed (4).

Though Ermenrich assumed bad faith from the very first day I met them (5) up to openly identifying me with some sock puppet mastermind (6), they now claim I assume bad faith for noticing that at Odoacer they supported exclusion of multiple sources claiming Hunnic descent for him, but at Mundus they support the addition of a minoritary view whereby Jordanes' words should be upset and misinterpreted to cast doubt on Mundus' Hunnic descent, meanwhile pushing for adding to the article a Germanic etymology of his name and casting doubts on the Turkic/Hunnic ones. They take my observation of facts to be bad faith, whereas their identification of me with some sock puppeteer based on their fantasies must be good faith, I guess? Giray Altay (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Another user actually added a navbox of the Huns to the article, which I removed by mistake, I just realized it now.

But how can someone who accuses my of pushing my view, and implying that my view is pro-Hunnic, reasonably think that I removed a navbox about the Huns from the article to perpetrate my wrongdoing? It makes no sense. Deleted it by mistake while reverting Ermenrich's repeated changes while discussion at talk page is ongoing. Giray Altay (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted my highly controversial edits like this one [245]. You’re so focused on beating me you aren’t even looking at what it is you’re reverting, which is exactly how you reverted Mann Mann’s NavBox.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not focused on beating you, it's just you who make things too complicated. It's very simple: we are discussing, you add content that I see is or may be controversial and/or restore your previous edits, and I revert you.

Just sorry the other user's addition got caught in the mix. I am not focused on anything specific, but actually am losing focus in general because of this ANI section you just opened one day after the last one was closed. So now I have to argue with you here, at Mundus, at my talk page... Giray Altay (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this really something I'm expected to put up with? Constant accusations of bad faith taking over article talk pages? [246], [247], [248], [249]. GA can't even keep these things where they belong, at ANI or on a user talk page. Instead of discussing article content, he makes accusations against me. He can't even justify his own reversions of simple improvements to spelling when asked to, he just says I reverted you because you constantly edit the article, thought we are discussing its content here (see first diff of this reply).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Another nice example of how Giray Altay's imagines a cooperative environment: [250]. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep to apparently digging direction WP:Hounding and tag-teaming Borsoka. You are seemingly trying every possible way to harass me and make me lose time since I prevented you from pushing your views and apparently bullying IP-editors and new users at Samuel Aba. You then got your seemingly preposterous AN3 case declined and now you appear to be sore, we all got this.

Like I said at the List of Huns: be aware that I am saving your diffs and if you keep with your ways I might open some reasonable ANI case one day. Giray Altay (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

All Borsoka did was ask for a source: [251]. --Ermenrich (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not push any view. Our discussions can be read here and also here. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich is laughable that you post here one edit out of dozens. That is what I mean when I talk about your inclination to manipulate edit histories and take statements out of context

@Borsoka, I had already provided them with a link to Samuel Aba's talk page. Why don't you provide them with a link to where you silence an IP-editor trying to make you notice there were mistakes in the article and some valuable information was being left out? And why don't you give them a link to where, in order to keep out that same information, you went as far as declaring a 21-st century editor's commentary a primary source, and rejecting as many as 8 other sources for various excuses?

But perhaps you should first give them a link to how you stalked me to Eminwin's page? Giray Altay (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who has to put with something difficult now?!?!?!? You are doing it all yourself, including this case you opened.

Observing facts is not bad faith. Noticing you popped up at Mundus 1 hour after I mentioned it at Erminwin is a normal reaction. There is some legitimate reason to wonder, as there is legitimate reason to wonder why you support leaving only a Germanic ethnicity for Odoacer and leaving out of the article his proposed Hunnic origin in the face of many scholars supporting Hunnic origin and no specific mention regarding his ethnicity by contemporary primary sources, whereas you push for including a highly debatable and fringe theory discrediting Mundus' Attilid descent despite a contemporary primary source clearly stating that and the vast majority of scholars agreeing with it.

But thinking bad about fellow editors is indeed assuming bad faith (1), as is identifying them with some notorious sock-puppeteer with no evidence whatsoever ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erminwin&diff=1126183626&oldid=1126072483 2]). Giray Altay (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You should stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS for things that were dismissed at AN.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Things already settled EDIT: discussed at ANI, right, like four out of five points in the new case you opened just a day later?

When I say stalking I don't always refer to a wiki policiy. Borsoka did stalk (pursue or approach) me to Erminwin's page. That the admins did not consider it a break of wiki policies for now is another matter. Giray Altay (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Activities that you continue to engage in are not “settled”.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

This is as far as these two geniuses (who think a Turkish nationalist mastermind criminal would chose a Turkic username; who think a pro-Hunnic/Turkic editor would remove from an article a "Huns" navbox to perpetrate their evil plan) :

By reverting to their preferred version while discussion was ongoing at the talk page, Ermenrich caused me to revert twice (1), 2).

Now, Borsoka has done the same at List of Huns (3), even though conversation was ongoing at the talk page.

If I keep reverting, I could suffer a block due to the 3-revert rule. Meanwhile, they are able to push their views into articles, though discussions at talk pages are ongoing.

I mentioned Tag teaming before and no admin said anything. Now I am thinking about it again and getting more convinced of it. Giray Altay (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we should have to put with either editor creating this battleground mentality any longer. I've looked through the diffs provided. They aren't just minor edits as suggested (spelling, grammar, copy edits and such). Information was added with which @Giray disputes. They rolled back all the edits because others were made between those which they have an issue with. They don't know how to communicate that well being a new-ish editor. @Emenrich, you are responsible for clearly articulating why your edits should be included per WP:ONUS and seek community consensus. You didn't even attempt to before filing this report. Again, both editors are at fault with continuing to escalate this situation taking it to every page they can and continuing the dispute with aspersions, accusations and all-around assumptions of bad faith. This filing appears, by-and-large, to be a revenge filing to begin with. @Giray, I think you should take @Bbb23's words to heart from the other discussion. You were very close to being blocked in that discussion. Likewise, I think @Emenrich should stop making bad faith claims against @Giray and focus on trying to find solutions to the article. If a solution can not be found with @Giray then open a RfC on the article and let the community decide or seek dispute resolution. That's a content issue. Continuing this discussion here is pointless and may end up in both of you getting sanctioned once any admin feels enough is enough. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how you can look at the diffs I provided and conclude they weren’t improvements. Why didn’t GA simply remove the information he didn’t like? It was a single edit out of several. His replies on the article talk page after the block revert are entirely filled with insults and aspersions.

Block us both then if you think that’s what needs to be done. But somebody needs to do something.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just a member of the community. This will be my last statement here. You can't just pick an edit to revert. If there are other edits in-between you have to revert them all unless someone can point out something I haven't learned yet. I would like to see blocks avoided, bans avoided and for you two to have a proper discussion. Some of your edits are improvements and you both have contributed positive edits on the topic. If you both would focus more on that and less on jumping to conclusions and trying to force your own viewpoints on each other then maybe you could actually get somewhere. But unfortunately its now left up to an admin or community decision. --ARoseWolf 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If GA were collaboratively editing, wouldn’t he use the edit function to change or revert the single sentence I added he didn’t like rather than block reverting? That is specious reasoning. There was no prior discussion of the issue he objected to either, despite his edit summary.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to make me go retrieve diffs again? I am tired. I posted everything above. I told you I would revert any restoration of your view and other debatable content until we finish discussing at the talk page, and this is what I did.

The reason why I didn't revert edit by edits is the same why I don't provide any more diffs in this reply. Getting tired.

Oh, and if you were "collaboratively editing" we would not be discussing at ANI right now. Giray Altay (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had not immediately accused me of reading something I did not read on another editors talk page and then editing the article despite whatever you two decided there [252] and just blank reverted all of my additions, we could actually have discussed the matter like normal editors and I would not have had anything else to bring to ANI today. I made improvements to the article as a way forward, not touching the issue of Mundus’s etymology, and as a response i got accused of stalking pov pushing and trying to “prove everything is German “ when I had no idea what on earth you were talking about.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that there are other reasons (not just Mundus) that brought you to open this section, which is why your original post includes several points.

While I don't have incontrovertible proof that you read my section at Erminwin's (as I have, say, for Borsoka stalking me to the same place), I have reason to believe you read that section and then went to Mundus. Because at midnight of December 7 I published the aforementioned, long section about Mundus at Erminwin, and at about 1:00 AM of the same day (about one hour later) you published the first of a long series of edits at the Mundus page. Giray Altay (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, Giray's personal attacks need to stop, right now. Calling other editors these two geniuses, and accusing editors of WP:Hounding and tag-teaming Borsoka and stalking are crossing the line. Especially with no diffs to back them up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That usage of the word "geniuses" was a ironic. Sorry it didn't have the desired effect. I apologize.

Proof Borsoka hounded/stalked me: 1, 2.

Some evidence suggesting tag-teaming: 3, 4, 5, 6. Giray Altay (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't "tag team" someone on a user talk page and another editor coming to a discussion about your editing on a user talk page is not hounding...--Ermenrich (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Then what is hounding? Borsoka lost an argument against me, was declined an AN3 case against me, and they popped up at Erminwin's talke page, heretofore never edited by them, just to join you against me, talking about WP:NOTHERE is to be applied or something. Giray Altay (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:HOUNDING. Borsoka came to discuss your edits, the subject of the conversation there, not to to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. For that matter you clearly followed my edits to Erminwin's talk page. I'm not accusing you of hounding, am I?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I only asked GA to provide valid references to verify one of their claims, and finally GA did. This is what GA summarizes above as "Borsoka lost an argument against me". I am convinced that GA's warring mentality and quite obvious PoV pushing behaviour prevent them from adding real value to our project. According to my experiences, this type of editor is sooner or later banned from our community. For the sake of the community, GA should be banned soon. Borsoka (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly Ermenrich, they stalked me to confront my work, causing me distress. I did not follow your edits at Erminwiwn, where you started your long series of unfounded accusations against me 1, but got there after you refused to ping me multiple times at Huns, which you didn't have to, but I asked to do, since I didn't have the Huns page in my watchlist 2. I did check your profile, as it is legit since we were having a discussion, and next day reloaded the last page, namely yours, and found the interesting section Prolific new editor in Hunnic topics. Had you assumed good faith, or at least politeness by pinging an editor or explaining to them they should place the talk page in their watchlist, I would never have gotten to Erminwin.

I wonder how can you explain the fact that 1 hour after I mentioned the page of a barely known 6th-century Gepid general, getting about 5 views a day in normal circumstances, you popped up at that page, starting a series of edits culminating in putting into the article the same fringe theory I mentioned at Erminwin's?

P.S. If you and Borsoka think that by hounding me to all articles I edit and keep bothering admins just to wear me down I'll give up, you are sadly wrong.... On the other hand, I advise you to review your methods, because, imo, sooner or later they will stop giving you older-user-privileges. Giray Altay (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE

Borsoka has just stalked me to another page to confront my edits yet again. This cannot not qualify for WP:Harassing.

It comes after they lost an argument at Samuel Aba, where they pushed their view for a long time, rejecting 4 to 9 sources using various excuses, up to calling a commentary by a 21st-century scholar a "primary source". They did this to keep out of the article certain content, and, as I reviewed the page, I noticed they had already tried to hide such content in the past 2. Their answer to my noticing this was an accusation of being that IP editor...

Borsoka then opened a case at AN3 against me, which was declined.

Meanwhile, they stalked me at the page of a user, Erminwin, which they had never edited before, joining two other users (Ermenrich and the less-involved and probably unwitting Erminwin) in an argument focused against me 3. Ever since then they stalked me purely to confront my edits (no matter what the subject was or their actual opinion on the matter) on several other pages 5, 6, the last time being today, when I woke up with a nice red alert after opening Wikipedia 7.

It is complicated enough to deal with Ermenrich, an individual constantly accusing me from the first day we "met" in Wikipedia (first nationalist, then WP:NOTHERE, then sock-puppetry, now single purpose account). But while I can somehow accept to argue with them (because all this stems from their real concern for nationalists, etc.), I cannot tolerate anymore the practices of Borsoka, who started hounding me and harass me when I begged to differ at Samuel Aba, thwarting their attempt to keep certain content out of the article, and increased the intensity after I caused them to open an AN3 case that was declined. It appears Borsoka's actions are spurred by revenge, rather then an interest in protecting or improving Wikipedia.

If Borsoka doesn't get a sanction, or at least a warning for their conduct, here, I will myself open a new ANI case, since now I have even more diffs to provide. I will not do so for revenge, and I will be sad it's going to cause more time lost for the admins and commentators. But I'll have to do it because, like I said, Borsoka is causing me distress. Giray Altay (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka clearly found out about your edits at List of Huns here. Edit I see this is about Attilid dynasty - Borsoka is there to remove unsourced material. That is not hounding. Simply repeating all your old grievances against me and everyone else is tiring.

Whether you like “dealing with me” and Borsoka, not to mention Erminwin, Kansas Bear, etc, or not, we are the editors who are active in this topic area. You’re either going to have to learn to live with us (and stop accusing us of unfounded claims like tag teaming, trying to make everything German, etc, not to mention generally refusing to allow any edits that cite scholarly reliable sources that don’t support your POV), or you’re going to have to deal with a lot of acrimony here and quite probably eventually get banned. Your choice.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

But accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without any evidence is okay and didn't affect collaboration in any way? Neither did inferring they were a nationalist? You can't make bad faith accusations and then start chastising them when it comes back at you. They do need to work with every editor in the discussion but when you feel as though you can add whatever you want without being challenged and then run to this noticeboard when you are challenged then what do you expect from a new editor that feels they are being ganged up on? You went to their talk page where I was trying to encourage them to stop making their accusations and hopefully start working with you and repeat the same things over and over sabotaging any effort to get them to comply. To me that is hounding. You want them to stop but you don't. --ARoseWolf 13:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Giray Altay you may have not realised but many of your edits have so far mentioned in this discussion and previous discussions. If you look at my user page, you will also realise that members of the Árpád dynasty are within my scope of interest. You are presenting them as Attalids which is quite obviously nonsense original research. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't my topic of interest but if he can provide scholarly sources for what he is adding then it isn't original research. Even if he adds unreliable sources it still isn't original research even though it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Look at what they say: it is preposterous that the Arpads and Attilids (supposed ancestors) are related, but the Attilids ar in my scope of interest. But if it's "obviously nonsense" they are related, how did you find the Attilid dynasty?

And why did you find the Attilid dynasty now , when it was created a month ago? 1

The last time you clang on mirrors you slept and fell Borsoka 2 don't make the same mistakes again. You hounded me? Yes. It's fine. Just admit it and apologize.

@ARoseWolf EXACTLY (!!). See, they have accused me for a combined list of: WP:NOTHERE, sock-puppetry, nationalism, single purpose account, WP:OR. They don't even know what they are talking about. For them, here the purpose is not reach the truth, a sensible conclusion; purpose is proving what they have already decided. Giray Altay (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not old grievances, they are facts, things that happened in the past and were not sanctioned, but keep on happening. How did Borsoka see the Attilid dynasty here? How did they find the argument against me at Erminwin's talk page in the first place?

Do you realize that by constantly supporting Borsoka in the face of incontrovertible evidence showing they stalked will make the readers of this considering tag teaming more and more a possibility? I know that they are closing eyes on you because you are older editors. But I advise against keep pushing it.

Stop bringing the argument's focus elsewhere. I have nothing against any editors; but I tell those who misbehave based on wiki's own policies that they are doing so.

I have reasons to believe that Borsoka stalked me in the first place, and kept on hounding me. In fact, I have evidence for that, and will open a case if they don't desist.

I have also incontrovertible evidence that you made personal attacks and unfair accusations 1, evidence suggesting you stalked me (cf. 2 (read it) and one hour later 3, first of a series leading to this 3), and indications of an apparent failure of assuming good faith from the very beginning 5, 6.

I hope you also remember that you yourself opened this section at ANI, hours after an argument between us at ANI, where you had already made 4 out of 5 of your points, had concluded. Since then, only a discussion at a talk page took place (Mundus), and you yourself stated that's, in synthesis, the reason why you came here. You didn't even attempt to place an edit warring-warning, start a RfC, go to AN3...

You are wasting a lot of the adminss time, my time, and your own time. Giray Altay (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf - you're accusing ME of hounding now? He accused me of lying, repeated the accusation, and I showed it was false on his talk page. I'm not sure how that harms the situation in any way.

You, like Geray Altay, keep bringing up the discussion that Geray Altay might be a sock puppet - which I mentioned at most four times, twice at the previous AN - as though it were a going concern. I have not mentioned it once in this report or elsewhere. This is what I mean about "repeating old grievances."

My report was primarily about what is going on at Mundus (magister militum) right now, and I included previous misconduct to show a pattern. Geray Altay continues to insinuate that I have impure motives (most recently here where he accuses me of wanting to make Mundus "more Germanic" [253]) for wanting to include a sourced and completely inoccuous sentence to the article, namely [254]. He continues to rely on his own WP:OR, saying I will never even consider mentioning in the article that misinterpretation of a primary source and I believe that the theory Jordanes means anything beside what he literally says, is fringe. [255], showing a misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE . He continues to fight editors at List of Huns and Attalid dynasty about his original research based on medieval chronicles.

So, as I say, the community can do nothing, but then this behavior is going to continue. So if you need to ban more than just GA, so be it - I've been here a while and maybe I've seen enough Wikipedia. But something needs to be done, sooner or later.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: yes, it is quite obvious that it is not your topic of interest. GA has not provided a single reliable source to verify their statements that I deleted. Reference to a medieval chronicle claiming that a Hungarian ruler was descended from Attila does not verify any statements about the Hunnic nationality of the Hungarian ruler's descendants. @Giray Altay:, I can imagine that my requests for verification are causing you distress: most of your edits contain original research. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize what you just said? Attila was Hun? Correct? And there is a historical chronicle that makes a claim that a Hungarian ruler was a descendant of Atilla, who was a Hun, but you can't see how that claim ties their descendants to the Hunnic people? Do you understand how genetics work? They are just claims and they should be listed as such but several of the claims made on Attilid dynasty are attributed to medieval Hungarian chroniclers yet you haven't removed those. So is it only the ones you like or agree with that can stay? --ARoseWolf 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You need a modern WP:RS that says that so-and-so is a Hun based on a medieval chronicle. As many of these claims are simply made up (the entire connection of the Hungarians to the Huns is disputed/rejected by modern scholars, for instance), we can't rely on medieval primary sources for such a claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you show where that is specifically stated in Wikipedia policy? Because if that's the case then we can't use etymological chronicles from the 1800's to make any claim or statement about Native American culture, even eyewitness accounts. Here's a clue, we do, and without a modern source to verify it. In fact, anything that happened before you or I were born would need to be 100% verified by a modern source by what you are saying. This can become such a slippery slope into WP:Recentism where only modern sources can be used and if there are none then the claim can't be stated. History itself would then become only what modern sources say it is. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If we do that anywhere on Wikipedia we're violating policy: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. GA is using the fact that the Arpad dynasty is identified as Hunnic in primary sources to then state that people descended from Arpad are Huns (such as Albert the Bear). This is obvious WP:OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying we should make our own interpretations. In fact, I've stated that if GA cant back up their claims with a source that says exactly what they are claiming then it shouldn't be added. Same for you. The ONUS is on the one wanting to add the information. But summarizing what a source says is not interpretation and we most definitely can use the source itself. Secondary sources are preferred but not required and especially in historical claims. --ARoseWolf 15:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Ancient and medieval sources often contradict each other, or their claims are rejected by modern sources, as is usually the case with the "Hunnic descent" of Arpad. You need a secondary source to interpret them and then sometimes even need to say which secondary source interpreted them which way, because the secondary sources disagree too. This is standard practice on WP when dealing with ancient and medieval topics.

Are you implying that I've been adding things that are unsupported? I'd like to see a diff of that if so.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This has went down a content tangent and I apologize to admins for my part in it. I won't respond to any further comments on content here. If you would like we can discuss content on my talk page. I welcome the discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

O User:ARoseWolf I really appreciate what you're trying to do in this thread, but here you've gone off at a very wrong end. Evaluative claims based only on medieval primary sources without support from modern RS are 100% OR territory. This is precisely what WP:PSTS is all about: articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. Nothing to do with recentism, as an encyclopedia we present the views of modern (20th/21st-century) scholars. We can't take anything written in medieval documents at face value, that's why we have historians (and yes, for better or for worse, history in effect is what modern historians say it is, provided that they too can disagree and that scholarly views evolve). Wikipedia editors are not historians, or at least should put their historians' hat off and their encyclopedists' hat on when editing WP articles. Encyclopedias written by historical scholars may sometimes reach back to primary source material, but with a pseudonymous internet-based project like WP it's essential to the integrity of articles that all claims should be firmly based on secondary and disinterested scholarship. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, I don't know about your general remark, though I can see @ARoseWolf 's point.

However, regarding this specific issue, there are secondary sources linking the Arpads to the Attilids (see Attilid dynasty). Even so, I always, always, always used the caution that x claim is according to Hungarian legend, tradition, etc.

If you look at this and the previous ANI conversations, at Erminwin's talk page, at Borsoka's intervention in those articles, you will see that they are doing this just out of spite. And when you add to this that Borsoka got it wrong twice with me (at AN3 and Samuel Aba's talk page) you will see it is a case of WP:Revenge even more clearly. Giray Altay (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What ARoseWolf is doing is called OR in our community. I can prove with references to reliable sources that Charles III is of German, Hungarian, Russian, etc descent. Could I state that he is German, Hungarian or Russian? Borsoka (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A new example of edit warring (against two editors who are requesting GA to provide sources). [256], [257], [258], [259] GA was already requested to stop edit warring: [260]. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Now Borsoka, your action stems from a WP:Battleground mentality, and is disruptive.

However, this time I actually didn't see Kansas Bear and their strange accusations of not pinging them; as if I had done that on purpose or for some evil intent.

There is not much coherence in putting a "possible original research" template, and the day later delete all disputed entries. how are other editors suppose to help?

And all this, even so they do know very well that all the entries they dispute are legit and belong to the article.

Btw: asking again: how did you guys find the List of Huns? Giray Altay (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I answered your question, but you still have not answered my question: why are you continuing edit warring? [261]. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf thanks for your effort to make them reason but it's no use. An admin mentioned they have WP-sock puppet syndrome; I for myself thought it had to do with my username, but they made me reflect on that and I later apologized.

The reason of Borsoka's actions is, imo, the so-called WP:Revenge, not sure about Ermenrich. They otherwise look like a normal, even good editor (from what I've seen). Maybe they can't cope with having been wrong about me and perhaps should take a pause to calm their nerves. Or maybe there is something in my edits that doesn't fit with their views on the Huns, Attila, Germanic people, etc.

Whatever their reason: they have decided to go all-out against me, no matter what evidence you show them, they will make up a new excuse. There is no coherence, no justice in the way they are acting.

They take words and sentences out of context, mix one article with another, but meanwhile, fail to reply to my diffs proving that at least WP:Hounding and WP:Canvassing have taken place.

Now, regarding the list of Huns: it is just a wiki list, and all entries fit the parameters "Huns or people of Hunnish descent''. Though I don't see any reason why doubting three ancient Hungarian chronicles linking the Hungarian royals to the Attilids, I have always included (for each entry) the caution e.g. Albert the Bear [...] a descendant of the Arpads, themselves of Attilid origin according to Hungarian chronicles/ tradition etc.

Regarding the Attilid dynasty: same; I included in the dynasty certain entries claimed to be Attilids based on later chronicles, such as the Arpads, but always added the appropriated caution(s).

Now, there are not just Hungarian medieval chronicles supporting that the Arpads were Attilids (primary sources) but also secondary sources, modern historians reporting that the ancient chronicles say so and sometimes backing it. Most of the Szekelys, and even of the Hungarians, accept these claims (Arpads'/Abas relation with Attila), which are part of their tradition. Even so, I underscore again, I always used the appropriate caution (this is according to ancient chronicles, tradition, etc.). Giray Altay (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: could you explain why are you continue edit warring (as I demonstrated above) [262]? Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Another new example of edit warring in an other article: [263]. After GA was warned for the second time against edit warring ([264])Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Borsoka, you have not well realized your situation yet. I just provided diffs proving you hounded me multiple times. And the more you two collaborate against me here and elsewhere, whether it is by directly pinging each other or forcing me to revert on different pages your bold removal of content based on excuses (see the OR at the Attilids), the more the readers will see why I mentioned tag-teaming in the first place.

I have still some interest in helping Ermenrich out of the situation they have put themselves in. But tbh I have no interest in correcting you anymore, just hope you get a sanction now so you stop harass me, or else I will open my own case at ANI soon. Giray Altay (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please open a case against me if you think I did something wrong. You have menaced me with taking to ANI several times. Please remember you should also explain your reverts. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not a menace, it is a promise. I have the diffs proving you stalked me, so why should I let someone who is at fault go on carrying on their business? So you can (seemingly) bully another IP-editor?

However, I also said that, should you be warned by the admins here, or, should somebody find a way to make you stop harassing me and others, then I would not open an ANI case against you and spare everybody a lot of time. Giray Altay (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The third revert [265]. Interestingly GA recommends me to use the Talk page, although I left two Talk page messages before editing the article ([266][267][268][269]). Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In your talk page sections you ask nothing legitimate. You pretend not to see or understand what the article says, just like you pretended not to see what the sources stated at Samuel Aba.

As such is the case, it is impossible discussing with you.. Even so, I replied to you, explaining that what you are claiming makes no sense since the article specifies that the Arpads are descended from Attila ACCORDING TO HUNGARIAN CHRONICLES.

This has not stopped you from reverting again.

Because your purpose is not improving the Attilid dynasty, but harassing me. Giray Altay (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka is keeping on pushing their POV at the Attilid dynasty, which they reached by hounding, making up excuses and pretending not to see what the articles states, similarly to what they did at Samuel Aba 1, 2. Thus, I gave them an edit warring-warning 3, but they keep on pushing their POV, having just reverted again to their disruptive version 4.

I get their plan and I think I might end up blocked if I attempt again to thwart their actions. Can some admin or editor give me license to revert again? Or can anybody go at Attilid dynasty, have a look, and hopefully intervene? Giray Altay (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The fourth revert within about an hour ([270]). As the above text indicates GA thinks that requesting references to reliable sources to verify claims is a form of disruptive editing. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka likewise completed their fourth revert.

But the difference is that I am not harassing anybody, and I am not led by WP:Revenge-mentality. Giray Altay (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1. No, I have not completed reverts. 2. I am not led by revenge mentality. I am only asking you to verify your edits. 3. I directed you to the article's Talk page for the second time. Why do you ignore my Talk page messages if you are suggesting in edit summaries that I should use the Talk page [271] [272]? Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked Giray Altay for one week for disruption, including their inability to edit collaboratively, personal attacks, and WP:IDHT. That doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Ermenrich and Borsoka are blameless, only that I think the principal problem is GA's conduct and their approach to editing Wikipedia when other editors disagree with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 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:Reymundo Hernandez

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.

---

Can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a feeling Reymundo Hernandez isn't happy about something. Clues: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Looking at their talk page warnings, it could even be they're not here with the best of motives? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no. I only looked at the very final diff above and that was enough. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that final one should be revdelled. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Done. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What's also amazing is in their entire Wiki career they only had 29 edits (including the deleted ones), but managed 13 threads of messages on their talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Their edits have been impactful, but more in the meteorite impact way than the beneficial impact way. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:54, 15 December 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:101.176.97.4

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.

---

Olivia Newton-John

Elton John

101.176.97.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after warning against making personal attacks, and a specific rquest to retract their PA at Talk:Olivia Newton-John, the user has instead repeated the attack. Polyamorph (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack. Someone said something that is clearly arrogant, and I pointed it out. It's commonly known, something is not an ad hominem attack, if there is substance, that's a fallacy. There was substance, the person is question did say something arrogant, so by definition, it is not an ad hominem attack. And I didn't repeat the line in question, as you can read. I think that should be retracted. I didn't write that. That's a slur and I think could come under a personal attack.101.176.97.4 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You're making personal attacks. Stop calling editors who have the temerity to disagree with you "arrogant." You've repeated it twice in the section above. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Not according to the definition of the words. And it wasn't because they disagreed with me. I was very specific about why I said that. It was because of something they claimed. I think you should retract that. I didn't write that. That's a slur. I have to be able re-state something things I stated on the RFC, in order to defend my position. That has to be able to be allowed for me to be able to defend myself. The purpose of this investigation, is to determine whether someone has done something wrong. That hasn't been proven yet. So it's vital people should be allowed to state things, that are part of their case. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to call people names in order to advance your case in the Rfc. The comment isn't the most offensive thing ever posted, but it was pretty unnecessary. How about agreeing to strike those particular words, and stick to commenting on content rather than contributors? Then we can probably all move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You Sir need a dictionary. I didn't ad hominem attack the user, as I've explained. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Digging a hole may not be a good strategy. Blocked for a little while. Acroterion (talk) 05:45, 16 December 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.

Breaking the rules

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.

---

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

Violates project rules, introduces information without sources. Blocked several times for waging wars in the article Ingush people. Tries to enter information from the YouTube channel. Several times the participants warned that these are not Authoritative sources. The participant clearly knows that he violates the rules of the project. I invited him to the article's discussion page, zero reaction continues to wage war. Товболатов (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Pay attention began to insult the administrator and me. Despite the warning from the administrator, the edit wars continue. here--Товболатов (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Ymblanter --Jayron32 19:24, 15 December 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 by user AndyFung98

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@AndyFung98 has a pattern of not following the Wikipedia Manual of style when editing in 2022 in South Korean music. They constantly adds new albums in caps format like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_in_South_Korean_music&oldid=1127169135. I would like them to stop doing so but they never reply to any of my messages in their talk page. Please help me get through to them. Lightoil (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Your diff doesn't work, Lightoil. You need to use either the Special:Diff system or a diff url, not a mix of the two. But I can see the user's contributions. I thought at first it might be a case of a user who is not aware they have a talkpage, but no; they have previously edited it, the last time in January 2022. Going by these previous posts, there is a language problem, so perhaps that explains it; they may have difficulty understanding the warnings. I have blocked them from article space, telling them they can be unblocked once they respond and undertake to stop with the ALLCAPS. Bishonen | tålk 10:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC).

• Update: AndyFung98 has been unblocked after promising to stop with the inappropriate capitals. Bishonen | tålk 15:42, 13 December 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:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Heili hei

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.

---

Heili hei (talk · contribs · logs)

Starting in May this year, this user has been POV pushing on articles about culture or concepts relating to the East Asian cultural sphere by removing content relating to countries other than China. Here are a few examples of their edits: [273][274][275][276][277][278] It is time to put a stop to this.

I have tried to communicate with them on their talk page, but it seems to be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU with no replies to my messages. (However, it was suspicious that this user would stop editing right after I send a message on their talk page, and resume editing after some time) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Those diffs do suggest there may be a nationalist motive involved, 0xDeadbeef. But it has all been reverted and Heili hei last edited over a month ago. Is there any reason you report them now? Also, I do believe they can hear you, since they engaged you at some length on your own page in May.[279] I suggest this be closed, and you're welcome back if they turn up and resume similar editing. Or come straight to my page, if you prefer. Bishonen | tålk 12:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. I confused November as December. I will close this. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:34, 15 December 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.

Simple Problem Only I.P User:46.218.170.110

46.218.170.110 has only been removing major vital informatiom from articles, more specifically todays FA. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: If you've warned them (and it looks like you have), this should probably be reported to WP:AIV ButlerBlog (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Mischief by User:Alaa Aly

Per Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Unauthorized_bot_making_WP:NOTBROKEN_edits but this might be quicker.

Alaa Aly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently making one edit every ten seconds with an edit summary saying it’s currently running a bot. Such a bot was not approved (and likely will never be, as the edits violate WP:NOTBROKEN, but that’s a side concern). It should be blocked ASAP, and any unblock should be conditional on the owner agreeing to read and abide by the bot policy. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, they shut it down. A stern talking-to might still be warranted. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DuncanHill and I have reverted all of their edits. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I revoked ECM for this user, will leave them talk message. They are welcome to request restoration after 500 legitimate edits at WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• The same account also added many categories, usually inappropriately, also reverted: example. Certes (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• And just this morning this editor removed an obviously correct category as test/vandalism. This looks like a case of WP:CIR. I would block, but someone with more patience may be able to persuade the user to stop doing things like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• I changed the section title because the bot-editing thing is no longer a problem. No strong opinion on whether NOTTHERE/CIR applies - history looks bad but nothing egregious I would say. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Granny3isagoodgame

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

---

Hello English wikipedia, his article in Wikipepia in WP:UP, need delete his WP:UP, thanks. СтасС (talk) 16:59, 15 December 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.

Unsourced changes by MoussaCB and IP

• MoussaCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.26.171.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly added the same unsourced stuff to the Algerian Air Force article, despite being warned several times against it: [280], [281], [282]. The same user also edits using an IP address: [283], [284], [285], [286], [287]. MoussaCB and the IP are definitely the same person, as the former has already answered a message left on the latter's talk page. I think a block is warranted at this point. BilletsMauves^€500 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

They really seem to be working in good faith, but I'm afraid WP:CIR seems to be becoming an issue. I'm not sure I'm ready to block yet, but have you tried explaining in some more detail about what is the problem with their edits? Most of the warnings have been either very terse or have been standard templates. Sometimes, new users don't understand such things and need to have their hands held a bit more. --Jayron32 19:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we protect some articles during Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Should we protect Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast ?

Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Kherson Oblast was protected per enforcement of WP:ARBEE. Lemonaka (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It is typical for pages not to be preemptively protected just because they are in the news. WP:RFPP for temporary semi-protection if there is persistent vandalism. Andre🚐 03:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There is consensus for pages related to the Russo-Urkrainian war to be Extended-confirmed protected, similar to WP:ARBPIA pages. These pages would likely fall under that, so can be protected. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because WP:ARBPIA (3?) was ambiguous about preemptive protections, which some admins at RfPP were doing and some were not, a few years ago several of us RfPP regulars all agreed against granting preemptive protections except in truly exceptional circumstances. Since then, the prevailing practice has been to pretty much universally decline preemptive protections (like +99 percent of em). For example, my last preemptive protection was Jill Biden, from none to indef semi as WP:AP2, once her husband assumed the presidency.

All of this is to say that, currently, these two pages are not good candidates for protection because it would be preemptive. To be clear, nobody really cares about uncontested edits made by users who fall short of required tenures—in this instance WP:XC as mandated by WP:GS/RUSUKR—but once contested, they obviously have no standing.

Any recent disputes with or disruption by these bellow-tenure users should result in the desired protection—in this instance WP:ECP—but the emphasis is on recent (days to a week rather than weeks to months). If there are any issues with these two pages in this regard, say, in December, please submit a request to WP:RFPP/I, which will likely be granted. HTH. El_C 11:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C Thanks for your reply. Now the case become clear, Cheers! Lemonaka (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing edits on ElonJet article by User:TheManInTheBlackHat

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 trying to add sources that say it is good because, well, sources describe it as a good thing to keep track of the right-wing figure Elon Musk, who has done some very bad and overall bad things lately that are bad. I want it to describe on how the account is keeping track of the right because it is overall good based on the reliable sources. Therefore User:TheManInTheBlackHat's edits are right-wing and he should be sanctioned. Scholarlectual Individual (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've left multiple messages on @Scholarlectual Individual's talk page (which they've sadly ignored) stating that they should review Wikipedia's policies on bias. Removing MOS:PUFFERY like "good" certainly isn't "right wing" behavior, right? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Scholarlectual Individual, you should discuss your desired changes to the article on the article's talk page and get consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 17 December 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:Endtoxicaid

As their userpage states, they're clearly a shared account. This is what their userpage says: Who are we? A group of current and ex-aid workers, as well as journalists, with experience in countries across the globe, with lived experience working in most NGO, UN and Red Cross entities, in HQ, Regional and duty stations, as well as having a detailed understanding of Donor ways of working. What we do? We deliver justice for people abused by the aid sector, by telling their stories with them or on their behalf, amplifying their experience and expertise. We use evidence against perpetrators of human rights abuses and hold them and those people/organisations that enable them, to account. We gather information, share data and triangulate based on knowledge to raise awareness of these traumatic and appalling experiences to put forward a more accurate version of reality compared to the aid sector online. Why we do it? The aid sector needs to change. It's an open secret among most aid workers (nevermind people subjected to their projects) that zero tolerance means nothing. Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. Islamaphobia. Religious Discrimination. Ableism. Elitism. White Saviourism. Bullying. Harassment. Sexual abuse. Abuse of power. All are rampant in seemingly every aid organisation. And it's getting worse. Do No Harm means not harming their reputations: they aren't interested in the harm their work does to communities, families and individuals. The way to change this? Use their own evidence against them to make it more difficult for institutional donors to continue with their ill-advised or nepotistic funding approaches. Undermine their ability to fundraise through tackling their lies on social media, disrupting their efforts to con people out of their hard earned money through Wills or donation giving. Highlight their abuse of staff, "beneficiaries" and any one else so people can see their values in practice. Enough really is enough.

They've made several edits to Médecins Sans Frontières and several editors have recognized this and have tried to engage with them on the related talk page and remove the non-neutral edits. The best advice has been given by TimSmit. But since they haven't even voluntarily proceeded with #1, I'm starting this ANI thread since I'm now certain that UAA isn't the right venue. [288] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention that this user has also made copyright violations (see the page history of the article) and personal attacks. [289] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed by Orange Mike for WP:NOTHERE. Sarrail (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack, threat by user WILLTERRY

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.

---

WILLTERRY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an out of context single edit changing Enharmonic keyboard to Colonialism was justified, white power.

• Enharmonic keyboard 10:32, 16 December 2022 which was reverted and a warning given. WILLTERRY replied with a personal attack on their talk page:
• User talk: WILLTERRY 10:38, 16 December 2022 I removed and left a NPA warning. WILLTERRY made a statement that I perceived as a threat
• User talk: WILLTERRY 10:46, 16 December 2022

Adakiko (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked and revisions deleted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 16 December 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:Peleio Aquiles on Talk:Libs of TikTok

User has frequently sparked edit disputes and talk page wars on this page, going to the point of insulting other editors to a degree. I suggest PBing them from the Libs of TikTok Page to prevent further issues and disputes. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what is happening in the entry. I am not sparking any such disputes; on the contrary, I'm respond to the attempts of another user, Korny O'Near, to remove sourced content from the entry using frankly bad arguments and misrepresenting policy guidelines. Korny O'Near has already been discussed in the Administrator's boards before for his participation in Talk:Libs of TikTok, including for his usage of WP:BLUDGEON, his attempt to overwhelm other editors with replies in the Talk Page of that article, and his attempt to defend the validity of anti-LGBT conspiracy theories such as the groomer slur as directed to LGBT support groups like the Trevor Project. User:Horse Eye's Back was part of those debates; I hope they can confirm what I'm telling about the nature of the debates Korny provokes. Rather than ban me, it's rather Korny who should long have been impeded from editing on LoTT and all other LGBT-themed entries due to both his disruptive editing and baseless insinuations about LGBT people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In terms of letter there's something to learn from Korny, they are very very good at camping out right on the line without going over it. I do not however suggest that you emulate them in spirit, I think your heart is definitely in the right place and as much as I wish a solution to that page's seemingly intractable problems were that simple Pbing you (or Korny, or both) is not going to prevent further issues and disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"I would stop insulting you if you just agreed with me" is not a great defense, really holds true, although I am not educated on the content details here and so I have no position on who's "right". Equating the phrase "typically moronic and boring" to "criticism", as the editor in question did here, also isn't great. casualdejekyll 18:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion that prompted PerryD to write this thread, is, I think, over now, with Korny finally admitting, after three days of debate, that the description of LoTT as anti-LGBT is now sourced well enough to his satisfaction: [290]. Bear in mind that user Korny already knew there was at least one other reliable source for that description, but decided to provoke the debate anyway -- proof, I think, of his disruptive, WP:BLUDGEONing debate style. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Peleio Aquiles, Wikipedia has very high standards for how we treat each other, much higher than most other websites. If you keep criticizing other users, you will eventually get banned, and I don't think any of us want that to happen. I suggest you give WP:CIVIL a careful read and maybe edit less contentious pages for a while. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol this guy is also a big issue on the Elon Musk page and doesn't seem to have any interest in participating in a decent dialogue. Jatlin1 (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Talking about Peleio Aquiles Jatlin1 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I made 4 edits to the Elon Musk page on 29 November and a single edit on 1 December, after which I have not returned. Is that truly disruptive? On the Talk Page, I tried to draw users' attention to reliable sources discussing Musk's reinstatement of extremist accounts on Twitter, but as there seems to little willingness from most editors to engage in the topic, I have made very few contributions in the last few days, adding just another link to the section I had opened before. Can you specify what was so offensive about my participation in the entry, then, because I'm at a loss? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• This user's contributions seem to consist almost entirely of POV edits on political topics and aggressive comments on talk pages. Even in this thread they have been quite hostile ("Korny finally admitting, after three days of debate, that the description of LoTT as anti-LGBT is now sourced well enough to his satisfaction"). Many of their comments are, basically, flames: "Keep shopping those policies, though; the previous 5 months didn't seem to lead you anywhere, but I'm sure victory is just around the corner, now". Furthermore, in general, Wikipedia editors should not leave user talk comments titled "Read better" or "you need to stop being a bad loser". @Peleio Aquiles: I don't know what policy pages you have been reading, but I would recommend you look at WP:CIVIL. It does not make exemptions based on which political opinions you have. Please do not post like this. jp×g 06:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's ironic that you're so sensitive to the way I communicate to other testy users who were being disruptive, when your laundry list of my perceived sins and the way summed up my contributions in the first line of your post is itself so charged with passive-aggressive sentiment. What is so bad about the update I gave above on the debate that motivated the creation of this discussion? Most of the edits I do on controversial political topics stay, despite being placed in highly trafficked entries and presumably vetted by other editors, because I make an effort to follow edit guidelines on reliable sources and NPOV. If you want other people to take your advice for improvement to heart, it's helpful not to be unfair when you go about addressing them and to follow the same rules you're demanding from others. I'm thankful for Horse Eye's Back's words who, despite going through much of the same things I did with user Korny, has managed to hold better composure than I did and pass on advice for behavioral improvement without grandstanding and throwing the kitchen's sink when so doing. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CIVIL? Wikipedia is not twitter, you cannot behave here towards others as if you are on twitter, period. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

False information repeatedly being added to cartoon articles

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

This user only seems to be here to insert false information about children's cartoons (e.g. [291] [292] [293]) involving the appearance of a character called "Baby Stefania" or "Stefania Russo" (which I assume is a self-insert). I've also noticed similar behavior from similarly-named accounts on other social media sites, and from what I can gather (trying not to out her here), she acts and speaks too childishly for her age. It is clear that not only is she not here to build an encyclopedia, but she is not competent enough to contribute positively. 49.144.202.0 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, this user is stirring hoaxes on Octonauts, especially here. And from what I can say, Baby Stefania is not a character in this show. Sarrail (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the crap the user created. The user hasn't edited since December 11, and although there have been significant gaps in the user's relatively short history before, I posted a final warning rather than blocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Deor incivility

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 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 approached User:Deor, an admin, on his/her talk page to ask why he/she restored this racist comment, and was met by Deor calling me "a shit". I removed it, as I'm entitled to do under our civility policy, only for Deor to restore it. Is this the type of incivility an admin should be engaging in, or is it a case of one rule for some, and another for others? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:E037:92D5:32B0:D1E1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To make a general point: I've noted recently that we seem to be moving back to the bad old days when incivility by admins was regarded as acceptable and criticism of them was met by a barrage of opposition from their friends. Admins should be treated the same as anyone else, perhaps even a higher standard. Nigej (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would 100% agree with you. Apparently, the racist comment (made by Beyond My Ken) was acceptable because, and I quote: "...it was in a small template and thus wasn't meant to be a serious comment. Great, well the next time I make a prejudicial observation on an entire race in an email to my local constabulary, I'll lower the font size and see how far I get. It's so absurd it's hilarious. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:E037:92D5:32B0:D1E1 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• not a coincidence. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:E037:92D5:32B0:D1E1 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not possibly racist. The United Kingdom contains people of just about every conceivable background. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are being a shit. After spending years being a shit to a bunch of people over infoboxes -- including, as I will always remember, using OneClickArchive to remove attempts at discussing infoboxes from article talk pages immediately after they were posted -- you WP:VANISHed thanks to the help of an admin buddy in order to avoid scrutiny. Then you came back as an IP editor to continue the very same infobox disputes even repeating your own edits that you made when you had an account. Please, stop being a shit. Can't you and your buddy SchroCat just edit quietly without being a jerk to everyone you disagree with? Please? Stay away from your old FAs, stay away from infoboxes, stay away from ANI. Just go do something else, please. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 16 December 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.

Typical response from the Wikipedia community, exactly as I noted above. Rather than considering the issue at hand (ie the incivility of an admin) the discussion turns into an attack on the author and is then swept under the carpet. Nigej (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh, if someone is being a jerk, saying "you're being a jerk" is not uncivil. If you use the word "shit" instead of "jerk", it's still not uncivil, because profanity is not inherently uncivil. Some think it is, but the consensus is it isn't. Civility doesn't mean "no strong language." Additionally, if you look at the IP's posts here, they are the ones actually making personal attacks and being uncivil. So when someone is uncivil, and someone else says "you're being a shit," this community is not going to do anything about that use of profanity. Frankly, I find the "but he's an admin!" argument in bad taste in these situations. Admins can use profanity just like the rest of us. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'd say calling someone was jerk is incivility. Why not "you're being unreasonable". We seem to making up a new rule that says incivility is ok if the other person is a jerk. Two wrongs do not make a right. Nigej (talk) 18:14, 16 December 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 know this is closed, but jeez, you take a few hours off to do some Christmas-related stuff, and all hell breaks loose! Deor (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:The middle e

• The middle e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account is not that old yet after a few edits has gone on to start and create AfD's. (Special:Contributions/The middle e) This is not normal behaviour for a new account. This feels like someone is socking here. Can an admin have a look. Regards, Govvy (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor is adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:The <sup>m</sup>iddle <sup>e</sup>}} to their userpage a typical new editor behaviour. Either they aren't too worried as they haven't got any skeletons in the closet anyway, or they're trying to make it obvious. I hope it's the first one. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is tagging users in ANI and questioning them on their talk page appropriate? I thought sockpuppetry was illegitimate use of multiple accounts, the user doesn't seem to have done anything to arouse suspicion that this is the case, except for being competent. JeffUK (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK: When mentioning someone here it clearly says to add a notice to their talk page. I didn't see any other relatable accounts to run an SPI. That's why you post a possible WP:DUCK sighting here!! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought I knew who that was, but I was wrong. That doesn't happen so often.  Confirmed to User:Gaois, User:X00y, User:Fingoal, User:Ihearthurling, and User:Litelad. Would be nice if one of them could explain this. There's a lot of overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the account is going cold like it's done a runner. @NinjaRobotPirate: Maybe they got scared off?? Govvy (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it happens. You ask what's up, and you get dead air. If nobody responds after a while, I guess we can look at it more closely. Sometimes people accept their own drafts or vote multiple times using socks, but I didn't see any of that in a cursory skim over the edits. If there isn't anything like that, I don't understand why one of the accounts wouldn't just say, "Oops, my bad, yeah, those are all my accounts." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a bit: what if it's a school or library IP? casualdejekyll 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Checkusers can identify those when they resolve the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's not my account. I've never seen the account before. And it's a lot to take in and then try to respond. I haven't voted multiple times on anything. I rarely even vote once on anything. I don't know how to explain cases of creating the wrong AfD's mentioned above. I'm not involved at AfD. --Gaois (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• These are different editing interests too, unless every sport is the same interest. I'm not even watching the World Cup. --Gaois (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really understand this. But I'll try to explain based on the overlap link and what I see there. Some of the editors included I haven't interacted with and it looks like they're not even interested in the same subject.

From looking at the user on the far right I can see zero overlapping edits if I'm reading it correctly. That's the user who's mentioned. The one with the strange signature. The one interested in the World Cup / starting AfDs. If I take me out of it here it looks clearer. The list is shorter. It’s easier to read. The overlap has decreased and goes out to months. Since I edit widely within the same subject and this subject provides all of the pages, the interests narrow when I'm subtracted.

Similar with second from the left. Zero after zero. There isn't the same editing interest there at all. The overlap there is basically this edit. I rephrased one sentence at the top of a famous person's page because (I think) I thought the phrasing used - "before" and "was" - made it sound awkward or made it sound like it could've happened on the street. It's a person who is known all over the world and who had been on the news that week because of what happened to them. I don't normally edit there.

The fourth user from the right has a lot of ones, so one edit and then nothing else. Many of the pages are (or were) new and I would've edited them, particularly if they were stubs, to include a category or made some minor correction if that's what was needed. I've edited new pages contributed by other users, copyedited and made corrections to their work. I do this particularly if they have maintenance templates on top but not all of them do. I've also done the same with the work of other users who are not mentioned here, tried to help improve that work. This is often when the articles have just appeared, so it can be within hours, a day or two if I'm delayed, a week or two if there isn't much happening or if I'm away. I've looked through contributions of certain users, checking if they have been up to anything new based on their previous contributions (I don't know if it's allowed, but I did it and I probably shouldn't have done it). Not all of these editors are listed here but there is similar overlap of interest because their edits overlap with what I edit. I don't want to drag other users in here so I'll use new articles instead to give context to the quick responses, the ones within hours.

This is a recent example where I thought afterwards that I was too quick. When I noticed there was half an hour's difference (after I edited) I thought straight away I might have caused them to have an edit conflict and I don't want to do that if they're still making the page. I try to wait a few hours if I notice a new page early. This is another one where I was too quick with a second and third edit, with a separate editor who is not named here, but because I happened to notice it I went straight in. I hope I didn't put him off because it looks like he was still working on it the next day, as I can see now in the history. Basically what happened in those cases was they created a page the previous day. That new page showed up later in one of the places that show up new pages so I noticed it. Then I looked at the user’s contributions to see if they had a newer page which wasn't showing up yet. If I found they had another newer one I edited it as well. So I haven't always waited until the next day. Looking at it now I wish I had. Then again it looks like it would've been better to ignore the new pages entirely.

Some look like drafts. I've edited drafts left over by others too. An example where I edited a draft by another user who isn't mentioned here is this attempt at copyedit/improvement. I began editing that draft the same day I noticed it was declined and it was later accepted. It was declined because "Submission is improperly sourced" so it needed citations. I didn't expect my efforts would be enough for it to be accepted but it was. Several days after it was accepted I informed the user who had started it here because it looked like they were trying to get it accepted for a long time (going by the three submission attempts on their talk page), also because some dates were wrong and I wasn't sure if they knew it was accepted. They didn't reply but they later resumed work on the page. I think this is the most recent draft by another user I was involved with. A few of the pages in the overlap look like drafts so I must've given up on them.

This page and its history are an example of one that I would've seen first as a new page. The second edit is by someone not mentioned here. The third edit the same. Then I added a category, hours later, into the following day. Then some cleanup. No further edits. Someone not mentioned here added DEFAULTSORT the next day. Nothing happened for several days then someone else not mentioned here added short description. Nothing more for two weeks then someone not mentioned here added several categories. By the time several users were making more edits weeks had passed.

To take the articles as I see them listed, the top two and number seven are teams and when I'm not looking at new articles that's where I copyedit and include citations. Three, four five and six, eight until around twenty or twenty-two all look like cases of new articles I would've seen. Other teams are included too. Going further down where several hours and even more than half a day have passed, I see more and more new articles edited hours after they appeared. None of them are within half an hour, which I think (hope – don't want to cause edit conflicts that put the user off) is my overall record, from the other day. I mentioned it above, this to make it easier.

The second user from the right has some edits to a few of the same articles but with a narrower range of interest. The only overlap that is close in time looks like the top page, which is a team. Most of my editing, as I said above, is making small improvements to teams and that leads to other pages. It was part of the set of teams on my watchlist so any edit to that page would've attracted my attention.

Ihearthurling: I created the Ihearthurling account which contains so much of the overlap one day when I was bored. This is a stupid excuse. I can see that. I wish I hadn't done it. But I did. It was well-intentioned or at least not intended to cause harm as I'm going to explain below. There were also the following influences: (1) it was the off-season for the teams I usually edit (2) I wanted to edit away from the same teams I usually edit, away from my watchlist, away from the notifications that came every week making me want to check the usual teams (for vandalism or uncited additions) many I had carefully copyedited and was anxious that their overall quality didn't decline any further (3) The watchlist was distracting and irritating me, but I didn't want to give them up completely either because I thought they would be useful next year (3) I wanted to get away from my talk page for similar reasons. That clearly didn't work. I would've been better just emptying my watchlist. Or finding a completely different hobby. There have to be easier things than this.

So to attempt to explain. I'd noticed how poor so many of these other, often intermediate, competitions and the different teams that play in them were. Someone would come along and prod them because of a shortage of citations or because nobody else had shown interest in improving them. This annoyed me because it was a shame to see the work of other users lost just because they hadn't thought to include one citation. Here is an example of an appeal by me to nudge as nicely as possible another editor into including anything that might prevent what they had started the previous day from being deleted. I normally leave those alone. Then I look later and they're gone (if I've been away for a week or more). I thought if I could improve them even slightly they would have a chance of escaping that. I didn't think anyone would notice so I kept going. Over time I kept returning to it. A habit developed of editing. I wanted to make improvements. It wasn't about adding scores to the competition pages. There are others who do this. They do it very well. I don't know where they get their information from. But I was happy to leave them to it. Do they include citations for what they add? Well, not all of them do. So I thought I would try. The same newspapers and websites I normally refer to could be relied on, I thought. Just the basics. The detail of those pages didn't interest me. And when I was there I thought there was no harm in tidying up the existing sections (or making some sections if there were none). I shouldn't have done this. It was the wrong way to go about it.

What I described above should be clear from its history. They're mostly the same type of edits. I didn't give it a lot of thought. I didn't use it to influence AfD outcomes. There isn't any connection to AfD. I don't understand the AfD connection as mentioned here. I can't see any editing overlap with that account. I haven't much interest in AfD at all, unless I notice one involves a page related to the subject I edit and then it comes up as an alert. Even then I'm not much use and stay away. Which makes it even worse that all this is because an AfD was started and created incorrectly. An AfD on a subject I've no interest in, as consistent with my edits.

If I understand correctly this is the outcome entirely of people thinking AFD is being influenced by multiple votes? And that I'm part of this. Does the Editor Interaction Analyser not show these attempts to influence AfD? I can't see them in the overlap. I've spent hours checking. I can't see them linked anywhere here, above. Could someone explain if AfD is supposed to appear in this Editor Interaction Analyser?

If I understand correctly I'm also supposed to have voted multiple times in AFDs. This is disappointing and serious. I can't even see where it's shown that this has happened. I might have done wrong while meaning to do well above but to do wrong and deliberately influence AfDs is even worse.

I definitely haven't set out to vote multiple times at AfD. Or anywhere else. --Gaois (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It turns out the user third from left in the Editor Interaction Analyser, the one who is overlapping me constantly in hours and days and in the same subject I edit, is someone near me I trusted. They thought it'd be fun to target me with new pages/stubs to get a response from me. So I responded without realising, as I was in the habit of doing. This probably encouraged them to continue to try to get a reaction from me, by making stubs and blocks of text that I'd edit hours afterwards, or later that week, or later again. With the intention of improving them. In the middle of edits to everyone else's work. I have no idea why they've done this to me. They're either pleased or indifferent that I'm in trouble. Maybe they found out before I did too. I don't think they understand the extent of it. All my spare time this week has been spent trying to sort this out and make sense of it.

The Editor Interaction Analyser shows when users first edited the page. I edited the team pages first and was second editor if new pages appeared. If a team was linked in the new page this set off my watchlist and notifications. This happened with so many users that I lost track. There was at least one new addition to my watchlist or notifications when I edited every day or two. There were even more if was away. I have no idea how many users turn up on my watchlist because of the number of pages on it.

If the user linked their new page in the team, I noticed this because of my watchlist and notifications, just as I noticed any edit to the team. Then I made the mistake of checking the new page and trying to find a way to edit it. I enjoyed that challenge. Often there wasn't anything to edit because the user had made the new page perfectly or it had no obvious problems. Then I'd give up and go to the next page in search of more. I wish I hadn't.

A user's new page wasn't always included in the team. If it wasn't then I included it in the team if it was possible. Since I knew some of the teams well enough from copyediting these pages I would've had ideas about where certain new pages might fit. I wish I hadn't. --Gaois (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a valid WP:CLEANSTART?

If so, why do we care? jp×g 18:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read the large chunk of text above, all I can see it's as if a duck swam into a large pond during the winter and just froze to-death! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame; it would be nice if someone did read the text ~ yes, i agree, a large chunk ~ and paid attention to it. The editor in question, Gaois, has been mentioned here, above, and linked with several other accounts, including the one Govvy opened this section with, offering it as a potential DUCK. I don't know what the CU saw, obviously, i can't use that magic pixie dust, so maybe all these accounts are linked and socks of each other. But, on the other hand, on the chance that they're not, i did read the chunk of text, and found Gaois saying one of the them was also their account, and offering a reasonable reason, not particularly socky.

Maybe i'm naïve, but i'd like to take someone at their word when they offer explanations for potentially problematic behaviour. Especially when they have taken a lot of time to investigate for themselves and are saying they're attempting to understand the issue. On the other hand, Gaois, conciseness is your friend, at least at the beginning. A simple, "this one is me, those aren't" would have sufficed unless someone persisted. In the meantime, thank you for the explanation; i hope that you can continue to work productively, and as a (single) part of the community. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 23:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Aspersions and possible canvassing

Something very odd happened on Articles for deletion/Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921. Three different users; Rəcəb Yaxşı, RadomirZinovyev, and Manchou, made very similar "Keep" comments at around the same time (Rəcəb Yaxşı and RadomirZinovyev were only two minutes apart).[294][295][296] Among the similarities include phrases defending the article ("Article is written with all details and links", "The article is well sourced and well written", "Article was written very well, all the references objective and keep their function"), making WP:ASPERSIONS personal attacks against me for creating the AFD ("Maybe someone wants to remove this article because of their nationality", "I'm struggling to see this proposal to delete the article as anything other than an attempt to whitewash history", "If there is article which contains realities, however it is againts you, it does not mean that you could delete it"), and using awkward English that sounds like it came out of a translator. Does this look like canvassing? RadomirZinovyev and Manchou had both also been editing inactively, which makes the timing of these comments even more strange. --Dallavid (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably no more strange than IPs coming in to back up your side of things, anyway. In any event, after looking things over, the Keep vote I just made echoes my take that there are many valid sources, and that your disparaging of a number of those sources seems to have a good deal more to do with that you just don't like the conclusions they draw than that the sources themselves are fatally flawed. Ravenswing 05:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Lobo151 is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

It is already clear and a known fact that User:Lobo151 is WP:NOTHERE, as shown by his contributions at Avatar: The Way Of Water, where he reverts edits from new users to intimidate them and therefore obviously breaching the WP:NOBITING policy.

But on top of that, he also refuses to collaborate and communicate, for example, he deleted other people's comments on his talk page, to hide the truth (oh and by the way, reading the other discussions on that talk page will convince you even more that this person is NOTHERE). Sold Out... Sorry \.-.\ (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is blatant disruption and your first (and only) article edit and an edit any editor on this encyclopaedia would have reverted, and you immediately bring them to ANI, which is very odd behaviour for a brand new account. I don't think this is going to go the way you thing it's going to go. Why do you think your blatant disruption to the article should be allowed to stand? Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well since they decided to delete my comment above with the edit summary "rv Troll" I've indeffed the blatantly not new and clear troll editor. Nothing to see here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.Lobo151 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It never ceases to remind me of my (long ago) days as a teacher and coming to the realization that many people prefer negative attention to no attention. Happy Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually they have drawn attention to the fact that it seems like Avatar: The Way Of Water is being flooded (ha) with disruptive accounts right now. Do we think it needs a semi protect? Lobo151 is doing a fabulous job, but it looks like it's the world's biggest whack-a-mole right now. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, considering just the number of unconstructive edits and reverts in the past 24 hours, I think semi would be helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @Firefly: jumped in to save the day. Canterbury Tail talk 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Firefly and I protected the page almost at the same time. I believe my was the most recent, so I semi'd for a week. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep - that’s all good, I don’t have any strong feelings about the length. firefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 16 December 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.

Long term IP vandal

68.48.156.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has shown a long term pattern of vandalism despite warnings including BLP violations like claiming a person is satanic and pov pushing . After political vandalism was reverted, they returned days later to edit it back in and the same made vandal edits ot Richard Kuklinski months apart 2001:8003:34A3:800:2060:5192:F1AD:E0A4 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a stable IP address used by the same person for nearly a year for nothing but vandalism, BLP violations and disruption. Accordingly, I have blocked the IP address for two years. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange edit patterns of Boogi wu

Boogi wu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited in a strange pattern. There are three kinds of edits in their history.

1. Self-reverted test edits. A lot in history. E.g., on Jiguopai Old Church , Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) and President of the Republic of China
2. Test edits reverted by others. E.g. On Anna Jagiellon .
3. Obvious vandalism or disruptive edits. E.g. Special:Diff/1125161850, on List of ambassadors of Tuvalu to Taiwan and Special:Diff/1123510600

I suspected this user need to be carefully instructed or blocked. I have warned them on Dec 15, but they returned on Dec 16 with an edit on List of Norwegian royal consorts‎, also a strange change of photos without any explanation. Lemonaka (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. I logged the block as "vandalism only", but it could also have been "not here to build the encyclopedia". Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User apparently has not discovered talk pages or edit summaries. They're aren't a mobile user, maybe they'll catch on. Valereee (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee I found they are a extendedconfirmed user on Chinese Wikipedia and was on wikipedia:AIV of their home wiki for vandalism only... FWIW,w:zh:Wikipedia:当前的破坏#Boogi_wu Lemonaka (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. So they do know talk pages, and particularly, their own, exist. Valereee (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

GreenCows alleges that GalantFan is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Since their block ended, GalantFan has returned to the same disruptive editing as before and are continuing to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Following this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Editing other people's user page and personal attacks, they were blocked for one week, including having their talk page access later revoked for the duration of the block. Their first edit after the end of the block was to leave an uncivil reply, accusing another editor of wallowing in ignorance, or suffering from attention deficit disorder, which is incredibly inappropriate. In their third edit back, they restored much of what they had previously added or changed on the Second Battle of Fallujah during the prior dispute. These changes were reverted by three separate editors and they have been told many times to seek consensus on the talk page for their proposed changes. I have told them previously that I would discuss their proposed changes on talk but after their ban they ignored this and immediately started to restore the disputed content. They even changed the wording to state as fact in wikivoice that during the Fallujah battle "insurgents and civilians had been killed or injured by chemical burns" contrary to what the cited sources say. Not long before this edit, they made a similar change here on White phosphorus munitions. In the next edit, I changed the wording to correspond to the sources since the claim is disputed and added George Monbiot's opinion but GalantFan made the same wording change on the Second Battle of Fallujah article. They have recently modified my edits here, adding some WP:OR. Administrator RickinBaltimore has even told GalantFan on their talk page when they revoked their talk page access to "not go back to the editing that led to this block to begin with" but they have immediately done so. In the last thread HandThatFeeds brought up WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE in relation to GalantFan, stating that "I don't think he's capable of understanding our policies & abiding by them, and he's just not here to edit collaboratively. I'd suggest upping his block to indef & removing talk page access, because we're just going to be right back here in a week with a full community-ban proposal when he starts editing again." I have to agree with this as they have immediately returned to the same disruptive behavior they were only recently blocked for. GreenCows (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"contrary to what the cited sources say." You keep citing sources which are opinion articles on a movie review by two men who didn't look at the bodies, just looked at the movie.

Quote "So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died"

"as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery." that means that he is NOT AT ALL QUALIFIED to determine someone's cause of death (unless, of course, they happen to be a heart surgeon). He is sarcastically telling you that he has absolutely no qualifications at all. But you keep using his opinion as a source.

Some guy who didn't see the bodies and says "We don't yet know how these people died" is not a reliable source.

Why revert the Washington Post report of WP (white phosphorus) being used to burn and "melt" bodies? The documentary was not the first or only source of info about WP but you keep deleting all other sources. And you keep repeating military talking points that they didn't kill civilians. GalantFan (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous IP replied to my detailed comment on Alamo talk page with "TLDR Nobody is going to go to the trouble of reading that. I certainly didn't. 86.186.4.139 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)" GalantFan (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty reasonable response, frankly. It was an obviously bad idea to post a snarky response a month later. JBL (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

multiplying 70% times 300,000 is NOT doing "original research". The 70% is from the source. the 300,000 is from the source. Where do you get the idea that just doing the math makes "original research"???

You keep deleting that men were not allowed to leave Fallujah before the battle for apparently no reason at all.

You keep deleting other reliable sources about WP being used as a weapon. GalantFan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted you on the article because you have been repeatedly told to seek consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page. Like I said before some your proposed changes are good. You're still missing the point of why me and other editors have reverted you on that article. And you're still continuing the exact same disruptive behavior as before. I never accused you of original research for multiplying 70% by 300,000 nor have I repeated "military talking points that they didn't kill civilians." These are false accusations. I removed one of the mentions of men not being allowed to leave in the Civilian presence section as part of a larger revert as you were supposed to discuss your proposed changes on talk. It's still mentioned under Controversies. I don't oppose these additions but you still need to add sources for the content you want in this section even if it's already sourced elsewhere in the article. Your reply to that IP of them suffering from attention deficit disorder is still very inappropriate even if their comment wasn't very constructive. Once again, I apologise for part of my edit on white phosphorus munitions. I restored the relevant part you added. The rest of that edit still contained OR and you have added OR to that page earlier here. I agree that Monbiot isn't the most reliable source, however neither is the documentary. And you have used Monbiot as source on other articles. GreenCows (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been invited to use the talk page to explain which part of my edit you think shouldn't be included, rather than reverting.

I added multiple sources which you deleted.

You seem focused on dicrediting one documentary which was made by people who went there with a camera and interviewed first-responders, rather than the controversy being focused on using WP as a weapon, or the fact that there was a LOT of collateral death and damage which I have also tried to write about.

I quoted facts from the bottom half of Monbiot's article while you quoted opinion from the lede by people who were not witnesses at all.

Other editors have repeatedly been invited to participate in the edits and have not made any contribution at all.

I have not done any "original research at all". Monbiot wrote in one of his articles that the military had admitted firing WP into the sky to make smoke. I found a BBC source that confirmed it was launched into the sky from artillery as well as helicopters.

You are acting as a gate keeper on the article when you are not informed of what actually happened. "I have told them previously that I would discuss their proposed changes on talk". I wrote my proposed changes on talk. You discussed absolutely nothing at all. You also have not made any attempt at all to discuss the changes that you have been making to the article.

You keep alleging that my behavior is disruptive when you are revert warring with me. GalantFan (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• For the confused. WP = White phosphorus, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), not Wikipedia or Washington Post, which were the first two possibilities I thought of. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• I don't know what else is going on here, but when someone says I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery [297], they're telling you they are not (repeat: NOT) qualified to determine someone's cause of death. That GreenCows doesn't understand that suggests a WP:CIR problem. EEng 21:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  EEng, I completely misread that part of the quote and I sincerely apologise to GalantFan for that accusation.GreenCows (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• "not used against civilians" does NOT mean they didn't kill civilians when they used it.GalantFan (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@GalantFan: Please put your signature and timestamp immediately at the end of your comment, and not on a separate line, like this: Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@GalantFan:, I'm going to add to BMK's advice, and tell you that what you are doing on article talk pages is completely unclear to me. I think you are posting proposed article text there, but I'm not sure. You need to make very clear what is going on, and what it is that you are posting, OK? Drmies (talk) 23:26, 17 December 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.

An SPA edit-warring on Christianity and abortion

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:TheMattro's only edits on that account ([298]) are 6 edits to Christianity and abortion, including edit-warring in an attempt to remove a long-standing section from the article [299] [300] [301]. Could that page be EC-protected; if not, could the SPA be blocked? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've warned them about the edit warring, which is not acceptable. I took a quick glance at the material in that table, however, and it looks like there's a lot of synth and unreliable sources [302][303] going on there, so I'm hesitant to treat this as vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the POV sources cited in the section are used only to support statements about what Christians who are anti-abortion and Christians who favor abortion rights say about Biblical passages. That is, the sources support attribution. The purpose of the table is to summarize the claims made by both sides concerning interpretation of Biblical passages that may be relevant to abortion. NightHeron (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If they're not reliable then they shouldn't be used to demonstrate what either side says. It's merely saying what that particular unreliable source thinks. Taking the individual beliefs espoused by unreliable sources and framing them against each other is exactly what OR and SYNTH warn against. We should be summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the claims on both sides, not searching out claims in unreliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

But sources can have a bias and still be reliable for what their side is saying. The section that the SPAs want to delete is not attempting to establish what the Bible really says about abortion. It's just summarizing the conflicting interpretations given by the two sides, citing sources that are reliable as expressions of what their side says on the subject. Nothing is being synthesized; the Biblical passages that appear in the sources are listed, along with the arguments and counter-arguments that are found in the sources. NightHeron (talk) 03:12, 18 December 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.

Coop454555

Coop454555 seems to be a sockpuppet of an older account. Coop2017 and Coop2006 seem to be related to this account, although I can’t really tell if this is true or false. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems pretty unambiguous, blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Another user is persistently complaining about me

Horse Eye's Back is complaining about me in various places and it is beginning to seem personal. This user has interacted with me and other users about my edits in the following locations:

• Joseph Smith talk page here and here (the last comment in this discussion)
• Topic on Horse Eye's Back talk page where another on Horse Eye's Back's talk page said I don't deserve to be "hounded"; an admin warned Horse Eye's Back
• several topics on my own talk page
• Horse Eye's Back extensive concern about my stated COI with the Association for Mormon Letters in a talk page discussion of sources on the Latter Day Saint movement project page.
• A small disagreement on inclusion of part of a sentence on the talk page for Hugh Nibley

This list may not be comprehensive. I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny enough I was actually planning to bring that "small disagreement on" Hugh Nibley to COIN but you didn't respond, instead you opened this ANI discussion. Smart, very smart. May I ask who the other users are if I am "Another user"? I've seen at least half a dozen editors raise COI concerns around your edits in the last month but I'm assuming this is not recent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

While we encourage talking to an editor about a problem directly first, before going to a noticeboard about it, there can come a point where direct talks are exhausted and further attempts are unproductive and can even start to feel like hounding. I think that point has been reached here. I'd say just go to COIN with whatever the problematic edits are (if there are still problematic edits that haven't been otherwise addressed), rather than making any further attempts at direct talks. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

For consistencies sake we also interacted in the discussion over the now deleted page Gary P. Gillum, if it had not been deleted we would likely have ended up at COIN (Rachel Helps (BYU) was the author of 70% of it and the man spent his career at the library which employs her as a wikipedian-in-residence) but given its deletion that just didn't seem productive. Kind of hard to bring up edits to a deleted page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, Rachel Helps didn't create that page. She just improved and expanded what had already existed for 10 years. ~Awilley (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I never said she did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting your 70% statistic, but at best that's misleading. She made 15 edits, mostly adding/improving citations and fixing links. Her most significant edit was to add a bibliography. ~Awilley (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That is my memory from looking at the page's xtools summary, its been deleted so I don't believe I can see it anymore. As an admin perhaps you still can? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It was userfied: User:DavidLeeLambert/Gary P. Gillum. 55% of the text is by Rachel Helps, but much of that is the bibliography. You can see from this revision that almost all the main text was written by others. She's not the author of the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That's added text not authorship, completely different statistic. Interesting, the person who its draftified under appears to be the brother of the person who created it who is currently topic banned, is that kosher? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kin punishment isn't policy so, yes, that's probably kosher. Adding a bibliography doesn't make you the author of the article, so let's move on. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the term, anyone who adds even a single byte to a page is one of the authors. You appear to be saying author when you mean page creator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think you misunderstand what Mackensen is saying. Adding a bibliography doesn't make you involved or a main author or whatever, at least not if the added bibliography is done properly. Seriously, drop this line of pursuit. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Where did you get the idea that that's all that was done? These were wide ranging and comprehensive edits [304]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The substantive changes in that edit were focused on removing/fixing/rewording copy-paste copyright violations from https://rsc.byu.edu/author/gillum-gary-p. Is that a problem? ~Awilley (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Would that be the same BYU which employees them? I also think you'l find a BLP violation in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Commenting as an involved user here, not an admin. I edit in the same topic area as Rachel Helps and over the years I've found her edits to be gnomish, helpful, and generally uncontroversial. I can't recall ever seeing Rachel her push her own POV, but I frequently see her asking for input/advice or implementing a consensus or convention that was formed by others. Most of her edits seem focused on improving sources. Anyway, I've had my eye on this conflict for the past couple of weeks, and in my opinion there is clear WP:Hounding going on. The interaction between Rachel Helps and Horse Eye's Back seems to have begun here on October 26 when Rachel left a polite note on Horse Eye's talk page basically asking them to be more careful when removing sources. That seems to have gotten her on Horse Eye's bad side, because Horse Eye's immediately (8 minutes later) started a new section titled "COI" on Rachel's talk page and followed that up with 4 increasingly belligerent threads. I left a polite note expressing my concern on Horse Eye's talk page on December 2, and admin Nihonjoe followed up on followed up a few days later with a formal warning. You can see Horse Eye's charming response to that here. In addition to incessantly badgering Rachel Helps relentlessly on her user talk page, Horse Eye's Back has been repeatedly accusing her of COI on other talk pages to the point where it's getting disruptive. Here are some diffs:

Nearly identical "COI" sections on Rachel Help's user talk page

[305] [306] [307] [308] [309] The threaded responses to those threads are worth reading. (permalink to page) From my perspective Horse's Eye refuses to deescalate and continues to make accusations (POV pushing, editing specific articles for pay) but fails to produce evidence or any objectionable diffs when other users step in asking them to back up the accusations.

Repeated accusations on other talk pages

[310] [311] [312] [313]

Following to new pages to revert edits for frivolous reasons

[314] [315]

It's my opinion that at minimum, Horse's Eye's Back needs a clear warning to drop the stick and stop casting aspersions without evidence. If that doesn't solve the problem, a one-way interaction ban would be next if it were up to me. ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

How is that revert frivolous? You're going to have to spell it out, to me it appears to be cut and dried WP:DUE. Also note that Nihonjoe is an involved admin, he's been involved when it comes to defending Rachael Helps (BYU) against COI concerns for years[316][317][318][319]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Horse, would it be safe to say that what we have here is two Mormon editors who are getting pissy over the fact that you made some edits that make Mormons or Mormonism look bad? 2601:199:447F:8450:7C4C:FFE6:8687:6A27 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't think I made any edits that made Mormons or Mormonism look bad, it has not escaped me that the "other side" appears to for the most part share the same faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

IP, I'm not a Mormon; just thought I should let you know, in case you were ready to pounce. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The interactions between Rachel and Horse Eye's Back aren't going well. If there is an actual COI problem, we have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where uninvolved users can weigh in on that question. Accusatory threads on Rachel's talk page aren't getting it done. Horse Eye's Back's responses above concerning Gary P. Gillum suggest that they've lost perspective. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK; I'm with User:Mackensen and User:Awilley here. Horse Eye's Back, you need to back off. This is your clear warning: drop the stick. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

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.

---

Content and edit summaries, please?

• JBN-TV 12:24, 18 December 2022
• Faithful and discreet slave 12:28, 18 December 2022

Thank you Adakiko (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've done the revdel. I might try to attract a steward's attention to the history of that page, those accounts need globally locking. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GS, beat me to it. Just a friendly reminder, if you ever need something revdel'd, you might want to reach out to an admin privately first. Bringing it here draws a ton of eyes to it, that's all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

While we're here, anybody fancy protecting the related article Esteban Handal Perez which is also getting some, um, suboptimal edits from IPs? — Trey Maturin™ 13:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Done by ToBeFree. Thanks! — Trey Maturin™ 16:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:02, 18 December 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 would like to remind editors about avoiding requesting revision deletion on such an active noticeboard like AN or AN/I. Please follow the instructions at WP:REVDELREQUEST and Wikipedia:Requests for oversight (for suppression requests). -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Contributions to support Wikipedia.

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.

---

Every year you ask me for money and every year I give you all I can afford. I am a senior widow living on Social Security yet I contribute more to you than any other causes but still I have a hard time using Wikipedia because I get a big blurb in front of everything so that I can’t read what I’m looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8482:15C0:9C42:2CB9:9892:2658 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The fundraising ads are created by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by the volunteers who edit Wikipedia and who run this notice board. We very much appreciate your support and hope it continues, but we have no control over the banner ads.--agr (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec) We do not want you to give money if you cannot afford to. We editors have nothing to do with the donation requests, which are from the Foundation collecting the funds. If you create an account, you can disable the donation requests. Otherwise, there is no way to know that the person sitting at the computer has seen a request or donated. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

To restate what people have said above, the big blurb should go away if you create an account. It should be fairly easy for you to create an account but if you run into difficulties, WP:ACC can help get you set up. --Yamla (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't give money--there are plenty of articles that describe how Wikimedia has plenty of $. There are much better causes to support out there. See: (wapo) [320] Edit: that this is still up is commendable. Respect, and a reason why this project is worth not giving up on. I Agree with the poster below who says the best way to contribute is to edit (productively and nondisruptively) as there are MANY articles in need of improvement, sometimes dearly. Those problems can't be fixed with money (money will likely make them worse). 2600:1012:B022:12CF:29E6:2AE2:8933:9FA6 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are on a limited income, there is no need for you to donate. According to Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics, the Wikimedia Foundation has assets of nearly 240 million dollars. A better way for you to help would be to improve some articles. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Y'know, <soapbox> it just feels so wrong for an elderly pensioner to feel conned into donating and having to create an account to suppress the banners. I know, I know, tons of non-profits do it. No need to point me to VPWMF, have read the RFC on banners etc. Just wish we could do better for our less tech-savvy readers </soapbox>. There is no good solution. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is this ANI report about? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Misleading daytime commercials about how you can sponsor a starving Wikipedia editor? It should be closed. 2600:1012:B001:42A6:69F9:216A:3DB2:3299 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Registered users can open Preferences/Banners and click the Fundraising flag to turn it off. There are no downsides to registration. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that this report can be closed as more suited to the helpdesk, I will climb on a soapbox for a minute first. I have seen at first hand elderly relatives on fixed incomes responding to fundraising solicitations from worthy causes, to the point that they were draining their resources to respond to every plea for money. Intentionally or not, fundraising appeals often prey on vulnerable people, and it is familiar and discouraging to see someone who feels compelled to donate. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 15 December 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.

• Jesus tapdancing Christ, not one of you can see you're being trolled? EEng 03:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Holy shit on a stick, why do you think I closed it?--Jayron32 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Language! EEng 04:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  English, but thanks for asking.--Jayron32 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Q: "What is this thread about?"
A: "Misleading daytime commercials about how you can sponsor a starving Wikipedia editor? ..." 1 - lolz! Best comment of 2022. - wolf 03:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Request

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

---

I have a request, although I am not sure where is the appropriate place for it, so i am making it here. I would like the redirect to my current username, to be fully deleted. Thank you in advance. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ιπποκράτης2020 I have requested that for you. Declined by GB Fan. You may have a try on WP:RfD Lemonaka (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

alright, thank you very much Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 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.

Insult received from 41.143.228.130

41.143.228.130 insulted me on by saying: "Fuck your mama avabrandon2000" after I prevented persistant vandalism to occur on Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco page. I'd like that user's IP adress to be banned/permanently blocked. Insult was on history section of the page. Page link: Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Editor who insulted me: 41.143.228.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is currently a discussion at User talk:41.143.228.130 regarding the insult I received from that editor on revision history page. The thread is Hell's bells you'll get banned for this. The discussion is about the topic The insult I received from 41.143.228.130 on Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco's page. Thank you. AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears that a WP:BOOMERANG is also in order: [321] [322]. General Ization ^Talk 00:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

HO okkk. I shouldn't have replied this way here, he could have been banned by now ... AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be switching daily, so blocking them won't help. I think a long spell of semi-protection might be the solution, unfortunately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the registered editor should be sanctioned, however, since they met bad incivility with over-the-top incivility, and even cited their response here. A time out seems to be called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked AvaBrandon2000 for two weeks for their profane and highly personalized attack against another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Horde of IPs adding unsourced facts to Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6)

It seems like the final episode of Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6) aired today. Many IPs have started adding incorrect information to the page and generally vandalizing it, while others revert their edits. However, I do not know who the winner is, and so I cannot verify for myself if they're putting in accurate information or not. How would I deal with a situation like this? RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

IPs constantly adding unsourced information to Swashbuckle (TV series)

These two IP ranges keep on vandalising the Swashbuckle (TV series) page. Prior to cleanup, they had free reign, but after pending changes protection and a rewrite of the page they haven't been able to vandalize any more. I propose partial blocking these IPs from that page indefinitely for long term abuse. I'm not sure how to notify an entire range of IPs. RPI2026F1 (talk)

Ranges:

• 2A02:C7C:940F:1700:0:0:0:0/64
• 2A02:C7C:940F:1700:0:0:0:0/64

I p-blocked the /64 range from Swashbuckle (TV series) for 3 months EvergreenFir (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, seems that I copy-pasted the same range twice. I meant to send the second range "2A00:23C7:CB83:B901:0:0:0:0/64" as well. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Mario Hidalgo 2020

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.

---

Mario Hidalgo 2020 seems to be a sockpuppet of TheEncyclopediaReader because their editorial stance is extremely similar. Sockmaster is Lil Pablo 2007. 133.32.177.108 (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It may be more suitable to report this to WP:SPI instead. In any case, you have failed to notify Mario Hidalgo 2020 (talk · contribs) of this report, as the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:10, 18 December 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 edits and edit warring by User:WazirMadan in articles Kotli and Kashmiris

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 user stated above has continually removed Pakistan from the article Kotli which is a town clearly within Pakistan based on their point of view and they are adding India as a place of origin for basically all foods particularly Paya (food) it seems this account is very similar to the blocked accounts here [[323]] the main account banned account Prince of Roblox also had similar tactis of adding pro Indian edits to food articles and claiming Kashmir as Indian [[324]] so maybe it's the sock puppet of Prince of Roblox?. However in regards to edit warring they have already broken the 3rr rule now and continue to disrupt with nonsensicsl edits. Please assist.Kmartdeeee (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As admins can see the vandalism continues the reported User WazirMadan (who I am now convinced is most likely a sock puppet) attempted to delete this report against them. Can admins please block so the disruptive editing can stop? Please look at their edit history it's very similar to Prince of Roblox sock [[325]] Kmartdeeee (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

[326] Again the user is reinstated pov which the sources clearly state is a disputed territory they claim it as Indian and revert they have reverted more than 4 times now. Kmartdeeee (talk) 11:43, 19 December 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.

Cullen328 - Tone-policing

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 starting to reach the end of my patience with Cullen328 (talk · contribs)'s tone-policing with respect to me on Wikipedia's help fora. Over the past year there's been three incidents where he's gotten on my case due to either incautious wording or taking umbrage with specific phraseology I use, and on the second incident I explicitly told him in no uncertain terms to stay off my talk page. Cue today, where I wake up to find he's posted a threat to block me to my talk page. For the history:

• Incident 1 was in June, when Cullen took umbrage to this edit, which centred around a draft that has since been oversighted for privacy reasons (if the diff didn't make that obvious). Cullen objected to my use of the phrase "crystal fucking clear" and my use of the term "doxx" without actually looking at the history of the situation, something which two other administrators criticised him over, with one explicitly calling it "tone policing" and both noting the privacy concerns were very valid and he was being pedantic.
• Incident 2 was in August, where Cullen took umbrage to a new template message I was testing for the repetitive and (IMNSHO) ignorant "company page article" threads that pop up seemingly every few hours at the Teahouse and Help Desk. Cullen hopped into a thread on my talk page started by someone else, which led to a bit of an argument between us that ended when I told them to get off and stay off my talk page. Again, Cullen was criticised here for the tone policing by another administrator. (I haven't used the template message since and actually had it G5'd after that thread to try and avoid further harassment from Cullen.)
• Incident 3 is yesterday/today. Cullen took offence to me describing myself as a "bastard helper from Hell", a phrase which I've consistently used for when I deep-dive into sources as of late, and threatened to indef me if I ever used the phrase again. I should note that of the two times it was used in the past 24h, the first was cordial in tone throughout and the second was demanding an American reviewer because the draft subject was an American. The second OP has yet to respond further, which I can't in all fairness chalk up to the phraseology; about half of AfC/HD threads don't get further input from the original poster and I don't find it entirely impossible they may return at some point later to reply.

Rather than get back into the old rigamarole of having a fruitless argument with Cullen on a page he's explicitly been told to stay off of, I'm bringing it here to see what needs to be done - to myself or to Cullen - to stop this. I'm not going to change my tone to appease his fickle standards more than I already have, and I'm not going to be effectively harangued off of the help fora. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Idk, I just read those and it looks to me like you're burning out on Teahouse and Help Desk. I get it can be a maddening environment--that's why I don't volunteer there--but if you can't respond to folks there without being angry or condescending, without profanity, etc., you should just take a break. Obviously those are areas where patience is a requirement. Again, not really faulting you for losing patience, as I would lose my patience, too, but impatient helpers aren't much help there. I don't see Cullen's comments as tone policing, but rather as enforcing our civility policy and trying to maintain a productive and collegial environment in the new user help areas. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The first incident was after I had spent an entire thread explaining to the person why their page was unacceptable. The second was quickly addressed. The third was self-deprecation. How would any of this be considered "burnout"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The first one had profanity and all caps. The second one was incredibly patronizing/condescending. The third one I get but might be misunderstood as you calling the other person a bastard. I can see (as Jay mentions below) that you have been asked to tone it down by multiple people. That you see this as a problem of tone policing and not a problem of tone suggests to me you're burned out to the point that your perception is clouded. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Is there a reason, Jéské Couriano, that you singled out Cullen's warnings about tone at Wikipedia's help fora, when I can count numerous other people who have warned you for the same sorts of thing going back months; including DGG on 1 November 2020, Mortee on 6 April 2021 with Blaze The Wolf concurring, TechnoTalk on 5 May 2022 and later on 30 June 2022 with 71.228.112.175 concurring, etc. There are a half dozen different people who have told you already that your tone violates WP:CIVIL at the Teahouse and other help fora, and you have ignored all of them. Cullen was hardly the first, or only, person to do so, and I must say I concur with every one of them. I'm surprised you've brought this here, as the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban from all help fora seems very likely, given that you've been told for years, from multiple unrelated people, that your behavior on these fora is unacceptable. --Jayron32 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mind giving me a diff to when I (Blaze The Wolf) agreed about the tone? I have very poor memory (I have no clue why, I just do). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Here. --Jayron32 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Because I've explicitly told Cullen to stay off my talk page. Also note that all of those warnings you mention pre-date the first incident. I've been trying to keep my nose clean since then. (In hindsight maybe I shouldn't have bothered.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Cullen (and others) that you need to take it down several notches. I enjoy and appreciate BOFH myself but he's not a desirable model for user interaction, even if the users deserve it. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that you haven't kept your nose clean. A bunch of people, for several years, have told you to improve your tone at the various help fora, and Cullen is just the latest of them. --Jayron32 15:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  And the past few months means nothing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not being incivil sometimes does not cancel out a pattern of incivility. You seem to have a problem with repeatedly being incivil in discussion forums. You don't make the incivility go away just because you had a some intervening posts where you didn't cuss someone out. --Jayron32 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with others above - the diffs presented above are clearly taking the wrong tone for the Teahouse, which is supposed to be a welcoming environment. Responses posted to the Teahouse need to be considerate not only of the editor to whom they are being written but also to other passers-by. If I was a new good-faith editor coming to the Teahouse to ask a question about my edits I'd feel very turned off by the messages linked above. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeske can voluntarily agree not to post at the Teahouse. I do not think his comments cause nearly as much angst at AFCHD and honestly it's a style that absolutely draws attention to the issues with sourcing. I would not support sanction beyond the Teahouse. Slywriter (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen's most recent complaint is explicitly about AfC/HD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any sanction at all is necessary here. I think Jeske is receiving a much-needed "wake-up call". It's not entirely Jeske's fault; after all, two admins did agree with him about the "tone policing", so I can understand why Jeske was led astray. Jeske, a tip for the future: if one admin is saying one thing, and two admins are saying another thing, and the one admin had >300 support votes in their RFA while the other had <100 combined, listen to that one admin and not the other two, because that one admin probably has a better handle on what consensus is. It's an unpleasant truth, but not all admins are created equal. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to listen to an administrator who threatens to block me indefinitely, has gotten on my case for good-faith errors not connected to incivility, and refuses to listen to a request to stay off my talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to listen, but the admin can still warn you, and act on those warnings, even if you tell them to stay off your talk page. You can't prevent an admin from sanctioning you by telling them to stay off your talk page, and you've been around long enough to know this. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, are you likewise not inclined to listen to anyone else in this discussion, several who are saying the same things? If what you're seeking in this thread is to demonstrate that complaints about your tone and demeanor -- in areas where calm/welcoming/friendly are especially important -- are unwarranted, you're doing a poor job of it ... never mind your bizarre insistence that telling an admin to stay off your talk page immunizes you against being warned by that admin. Good grief, you were an admin yourself once upon a time. How is it that you don't get these things? Ravenswing 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument though, Levivich. An admin isn't more likely to be right or wrong than another admin (or in many cases a non-admin) just because they happened to get more support years ago. I have admins and non-admins whose comments I trust more than those of others, but I have no idea and don't care how much support they got at RfA, or whether they succeeded at failed at an ArbCom election, or... There have been ArbCom members who turned out to be terrible, and failed RfAs who had a perfect handle on consensus or ... Heck, I even heard of people who first got an RfA without a single oppose, but failed a second RfA. RfA support is a terrible metric to rank editors or admins by. Fram (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, to each their own. I'm not suggesting it's a fine metric or anything--not like an admin with 201 supports is better than an admin with 200--but when you compare, say, an admin who got 300 supports 5 years ago, and an admin who got 30 supports 15 years ago, the former's opinion (about what is and isn't disruptive) is going to carry a lot more weight with me than the latter. But YMMV. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but whatever personal distaste the OP has for Cullen specifically, Cullen's warnings for civility violations were certainly not the first time he had so been warned. One merely has to look through the talk page to see a years-long history of recidivism despite multiple warnings. If I, as an admin, had seen that number of warnings for the same issue, I too may have left a stern warning with the threat to block for continued problems. Jéské Couriano's objection to being so warned by Cullen is obviated by the fact that they had been so warned multiple times in the past. Cullen's threat was an entirely appropriate one in response to the pattern of behavior shown over so many years, and warned users don't get ban an admin from doing admin work against them just to avoid scrutiny. --Jayron32 16:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to reinforce the fact that you can't ban an Admin from giving you warnings on your talk page. The warning about a block seems appropriate given the number of warnings they've had from others. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I will admit that I had forgotten since August that the OP had told me to stay off their talk page, and for that I apologize. If I see obvious misconduct by this editor in the future, I will just block the editor, and as I wrote on their talk page, they will need to convince another administrator that their misconduct will never happen again. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt you're likely to see that. That I will promise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

While User:Levivich can evaluate the opinions of others how they choose, I would hope that other editors don't use the metric of how many supports an admin received and when, in order to judge the value of those admins' opinions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As someone who acts as a host at the Teahouse and still periodically helps, I've been witness to Jéské Couriano's volatile remarks on the venue for the past few years. I hadn't felt the urge to say anything about this, as others had made remarks already, and I didn't see a point in dogpiling on, but yes, this has been an ongoing issue that straddles (and sometimes falls short of) WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, such as this comment made half a year ago, which I found appalling as an uninvolved third party. There appears to be an attempt to dial back on the drama in recent months, but I'm not surprised there are still users concerned with future actions. It's clear that the OP can respond calmly, such as in this archived talk page discussion, so I'm perplexed as to why the turnabout elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a liberty and make the observation this is a civil discussion between long-time wikipedians about the importance of maintaining a dispassionate tone in discussion, especially around newcomers. All of us are experienced contributors. We all want the best for Wikipedia.

User:Jéské Couriano complains one particular editor is policing his tone. In response several editors agree that his language has been sub-optimal occasionally and gentle chiding, by whomever, was somewhat deserved. Even Jéské Couriano admits he’s been working to avoid such good faith errors in recent months, and good for us. We need his friendly demeanor, good judgment, and dedication to The Teahouse.

As a couple of contributors have inferred, we don’t measure trust by a static !vote. We value the trust of our fellow wikipedians in the moment. Every one of us will fail the test once in a while. We need each other occasionally in order to hold us accountable and make this entire project possible. I’m not seeing any inclination among folks here to criticize User:Cullen328’s actions. Cullen328 has apologized for posting on Jéské Couriano’s talk, but maintains his responsibility as a wikipedian.

What is left in this discussion is for the OP to admit to their part and then we can close this. BusterD (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid I have to join the robust consensus here that the issue does not appear to be with Cullen, but rather the OP's approach--specifically issues with WP:BITE, and to some extent WP:IDHT. "Tone policing" is, in a best-case scenario, a highly vague, weasel-wordy way of implying supposed harassment, particularly where we are talking about an admin, whose community remit very clearly covers moderating the character of behavioural conduct and maintaining a civil atmosphere in discussion spaces, keeping them as emotionally de-charged as possible, in the particular circumstances. Further, as others have noted, some of the fora and circumstances in question here are specifically meant to approached with a especially lite touch, an even-keeled and cool-headed temperament, and an abundance of patience, for fairly obvious reasons; there are express and clear community-authorized standards for operating at the Teahouse in particular.

Jéské, with respect, I can see that in each of these situations you were trying to do the right thing with regard to important policies or valid pragmatic concerns, but the implication in your responses to Cullen's perfectly reasonable efforts to get you to take things down a notch is that you cannot possibly be expected to address such matters without reaching to hyperbolic and/or inflammatory language, and that's plainly just a false choice--and one our behavioural guidelines do not (and frankly cannot) indulge. If you are going top operate within these kinds of circumstances, you are going to need to re-consider your approach, as I hope the fairly uniform response here has impressed upon you, as you don't seem like a particularly unreasonable person. In these situations you are well advised to adhere to an abundance of WP:AGF, and even when you've hit the point where you feel you have enough evidence to justify dispensing with that principle, you should meet obstinance and even disruption with cool, meticulously polite unflappability, knowing you have community consensus at your back. In short, kill them with kindness where you can, not evidence of a vexed disposition or even outright explosions of frustration, both of which only weaken your position. That, or find other places to contribute which are less likely to have you rubbing elebows with newer editors who may push your buttons. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

By the same token though, I don't like much that Cullen told you to "stop being a jackass", and there was definitely some other shortness in that exchange: Cullen328, as someone who generally regards you as a particularly high caliber admin (and community member generally), I would nevertheless be remiss if I didn't remind you here that what's good for the goose is good for the gander when it comes to this question of using language calculated to close rather than widen gaps in perspective. If you're going to urge Jéské to reach towards a more reserved approach even when frustrated by another user's outlook and conduct, I think you have an obligation to demonstrate by example. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I truly appreciate your feedback and will do my best going forward to moderate my language even when dealing with highly experienced editors. I will remove "jackass" and similar terms from my lexicon, even when I am very frustrated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, Cullen, I'll pick up the slack on that. EEng 04:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In real life, EEng, I am quite fond of donkeys, mules, ponys, mustangs, quarter horses and thoroughbreds. Splendid animals that we have been cooperating with for about 6000 years. My mother rode a horse to school each day for quite a few years, long before most Wikipedia editors were born. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In a thread initially devoted to complaining about-tone policing, we've finally moved on to tone-policing the alleged tone police? I think we've reached a conclusion. I'm closing this. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 19 December 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.

COI Konrad Juengling creating and editing their own BLP article

Recently a COIN discussion was started about Kbabej and the page about himself, Konrad Juengling (COIN link[327]). It's clear that Kbebej has not been following COI guidelines. The BLP page is largely a self promotional article. It had previously been AfD'ed[328] but Kbabej recreated the page later [329]. The editor has previously been blocked for sock editing in what appears to be an attempt to avoid COI scrutiny[330] at a page about his uncle [331]. The discussion at COIN hasn't reached any sort of resolution. Ping editors from COI discussion @David Fuchs, Yamla, Hemiauchenia, Poundland Oximeter, and AndyTheGrump:. Springee (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, the first article was created by my sock, and promptly deleted. The second article was not "recreated" by me in mainspace. It was sent through AfC and approved by an uninvolved editor, and I also declared my COI on the talk page. On the COIN discussion, I agreed to step away from the articles, agreed to a tban (and said I would not disagree to that to not take up valuable editor time), and replied to specific questions.

To be clear, the socking did not have to do with COI editing, as you'll see if you delve into the history. It was an attempt to avoid AfDs on non-COI articles I had created.

I do believe I am a net positive to WP. I have created multiple BLPs, seven GA articles (six standalone, and one co-written), and am a great copy editor for punctuation (if I do say so myself). The socking issue was laid to rest years ago, and I haven't socked since. I have made more than a few thousand edits since then, largely cleaning up BLPs. I am ready to agree to a reasonable course of action. I do not agree with @Springee's characterization of the socking to avoid COI, and I believe I made a good faith effort on the COIN board to address concerns and come to a resolution; I am not trying to stonewall.

Any thoughts appreciated. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Springee: This all seems like old news/water under the bridge at this point. Kbabej has not edited the article Konrad Juengling since July 2022, and the prior COI issue was resolved seven years ago. Furthermore, Kbabej has, both at the discussion you link, and above, noted that a tban is in force. What more do you want done? --Jayron32 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that any tban was listed on their talk page since July 2022. It would probably be good to make it a clear and official tban and extend it to any other articles where they may have a COI including places they have worked. It seemed at the COIN discussion they didn't see any issue with their edits. Springee (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd support that proposal. Deb (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with making the tban official so it's all above board (not that it's up to me; just trying to not waste other editors' time with a rebuttal). @Springee, I have not had a tban in the past, so not sure what previous tban from July 2022 you are referencing (though I may have misinterpreted your comment unintentionally). --Kbabej (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What an amazingly puffy piece. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(nods) Really does blow through UNDUE, doesn't it? Translation of the article = an activist does activist things. It could be truncated by three-quarters easily. Ravenswing 05:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing, please go for it! And "activist" is kind of a big word anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've done the trimming ... and with the dust settling, I question whether this is a notable subject. Ravenswing 05:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not, it's just yet another self-aggrandizing puff piece by someone who thinks too highly of himself... - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

IP user vandalizing persistently

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

---

Hello, there is an IP user (58.151.1.126) who is vandalizing articles persistently and has been warned five times. They are causing much of the workload of the RC patrollers. Is it possible to block them? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Have blocked thanks. Glen (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Glen Thank you! Redtree21 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 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 user making a WP:POINT against WP:CATV

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

I confronted this IP user after finding dozens of additions to Category:Theocrats without explicit mentions in the article prose backed by reliable sources. The user denied the need to furnish sources despite WP:CATV and has persisted in the argument after a final warning. Now they indicate that they dislike the category and the campaign to populate it was actually a campaign to discredit its existence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Every word of the above diatribe is a lie, see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Category:Theocrats. The abusive and inept actions by Elizium23 show they don't know what they are doing. They claim I made "dozens" (lie) of "additions to Category:Theocrats", which is impossible. One cannot add anything to a category. One adds the category to articles. Which then begs the question, is it appropriate. In this case, yes, every bio and religious group (ecumenical -- Muslim, Catholic, Hasidic) to which I added the category in question well deserves it as a perusal of any of the articles would confirm. Unfortunately, some editors are too lazy. I believe that whomever created this category has discredited themselves with this vile subjective partisan entity. Nothing to do with my adding the category to well-deserving recipients although it is interesting to note that once I applied the category more universally rancor (however absurd the reason) resulted. In sum, this should have been swiftly and uncontroversially CFDed by now as overexpansive, subjective, partisan, and potentially likely to include most religion-related articles. 107.127.46.50 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Included among the blanket reverts by @Elizium23 were the Catholic Monarchs. Yep, good old Ferdinand and Isabella, who launched the Inquisition, expelled or forcibly converted the Moors and Jews, and genocidally colonized much of the New World. I guess adding the category Theocrats to that article requires special sourcing. Meanwhile, the category does include the terrifying likes of Homer Aubrey Tomlinson. and Ian Paisley. 107.127.46.50 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRECOCIOUS IP editor is now in WP:NPA territory; nice work bro. Elizium23 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Greek Rebel (talk · contribs) on Cyprus

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 was banned for edit warring on Turkish language, and now trying to push a similar narrative. Now he calls me far right. The info he's trying to put is redunant, and wp:or (putting various primary sources together). Beshogur (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Was the user blocked or banned? I see a previous block, but I'm not immediately seeing anything about a ban. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, I used them as synonyms. I mean block. Beshogur (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's pretty obvious now that Greek Rebel is incapable of editing the project in a collegial and collaborative fashion and despite the fact that they continual argue that every other editor is POV pushing and nationalist, it is they who are the one pushing a POV and nationalism on articles. I think it's time for them to be shown the door. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Could you be more specific about your opinion that I am the one "pushing a POV and nationalism on articles"? Greek Rebel (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Greek Rebel for a month. They have made very few edits since their last edit warring block, but today resumed very obvious edit warring at WP:Cyprus - when such a high proportion of an account's contributions are edit warring, action needs to be taken. Beshogur, you are far more experienced and prolific, but it looks to me like your reverts there would also be covered by WP:EW - please get more eyes on a situation like that, rather than repeatedly reverting yourself, unless you are very confident that WP:3RR applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Alright. Beshogur (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oops - for posterity, I meant WP:3RRNO. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:42, 19 December 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.

Proposed topic ban for GrandContimentalRailways

GrandContimentalRailways (talk · contribs) has a long history of bad behaviour on railway related articles. He/she has created multiple articles that have been deleted, and continues to create drafts while steadfastly refusing to listen to advice from multiple other editors about the the concept of notability and the need to add references. When he/she does respond to talk pages messages it's generally childish in the extreme as can be seen in this exchange.

Other railway contributors shouldn't have to babysit this editor whose net contribution to Wikipedia is close to zero. A topic ban on rail articles, or at the very least some time on the naughty step would let us get one with what we like doing - improving things. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(Arrived here via a notification to my talk page, thanks for this 10mmsocket!) I am not familiar with this editor. It appears though that the vast majority of messages to them have been automated and so am not entirely surprised they were ignored (especially if there is a langauge barrier). Here's hoping my message, the messages today from other editors, and this case being filed will encourage them to do better. I wrote a fairly frank message to them that articles need sources to get past NPP. I think we should hold off for now to allow GrandContimentalRailways to improve their sourcing. Garuda3 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This user might jsut be a troll since they replaced ANI With "AMONG US" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

...and "IRAQ IS BEST IRAQ IS BEST IRAQ IS BEST". The user says they're Polish, so I can't tell on the surface if the user's inability to accept feedback is due to language barrier or just not taking anything seriously. Maybe there's some potential value to Wikipedia in the local knowledge they have of railroad stations, but unless they're able to collaborate I don't think they're going to be a net positive. ~Awilley (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That was a one-time instance, and they were warned for it. However, they blanked someone's userpage after that user contacted them regarding a page move they did without prior discussion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

USer has now been blocked for DE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed which frankly they could have been for this and other disruption. Language barrier doesn't excuse blatant trolling and AGF isn't a suicide pact. If someone is convinced they're willing to edit productively, feel free to adjust this block. Star Mississippi 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is called for given the apparent trolling. Though Why did you think that was a good idea, and why didn't you discuss it first? isn't exactly a friendly way to approach someone. Garuda3 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  The original move was a very unfriendly action, so it's little surprise that the response wasn't exactly friendly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Civility is required... Friendliness is only deeply appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, this editor. Was wondering when their creation of articles with zero sources would come back to bite them. Good block. Wasn't even aware of the trolling, but that removes any ambiguity about the necessity of the block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Please protect and rev/delete at Talk:Cal Kern

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 vandalism/WP:BLP issues have migrated from the article to the talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 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.

Repeated disruptive edits by User:2604:3D09:2287:E600:CDD5:67B7:5AF6:977B on Hellraiser (2022 film)

IP user User:2604:3D09:2287:E600:CDD5:67B7:5AF6:977B (and the many IP addresses they use, including as of recently User:24.64.87.189) has been given a final warning for non-stop disruptive edits on Hellraiser for the past couple months. They've been manipulating the reliable source I provided and they've never responded on their talk page; to be specific, the IP user removes the source I provided and replaced it with the words "another chapter" instead of using the word "reboot" in the opening paragraph; they're also a mobile user too, and they've specifically been manually reverting my own edits, no matter what I do. Please give the IP user an indefinite block, as I cannot deal with them any further after at least two months since their first edit on the article. Edwordo13 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits and edit warring by User:Mr.User200 in regards to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeated disruptive edits and edit warring. Thank you.

This will be a bit of a long one, as it affects many pages on this site. Recently, there have been a lot of disruptive edits, as well as edit warring, on numerous pages relating to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. An editor who goes by User:Mr.User200 has been removing many pro-Ukrainian sources, mostly translated Oleksii Arestovych (an advisor to the President and an official Ukrainian source) broadcasts, but some others as well, and replacing them with “unknown”, or in some cases, with nothing at all. He’s said that he finds them to be “unreliable” because WarTranslated started translating them in May 2022 (for a war that began in February 2022, and the broadcasts started even later), when they’re not Russian (a clear bias) or “primary” sources (but only when they offer a counter to official Russian claims). He also claimed that pro-Ukrainian claims fall under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which should also for many pro-Russian sources. I’ve never seen him remove a pro-Russian source before, when they also have the same biases and flaws as the Ukrainian ones. Now, I am NOT suggesting that he or anyone else should remove the Russian ones, as that would also be biased, and they’re one of the few “official” sources on casualty/troop figures. He’s not even offered any alternative sources. If he was replacing them with other sources, I’d have no complaints, but he’s not. Some of the pages have also been protected, some I requested to protect against disruptive edits, although he’s removed the sources regardless. This also means I haven’t been able to put them back. The affected pages that now have protections are the Battle of Avdiivka (2022), the Battle of Bakhmut and both the Southern Ukraine campaign, and the Eastern Ukraine campaign. The pages that’ve not been protected but have had their sources removed anyway are the the Northeastern Ukraine campaign, the Sinking of the Moskva, the Wagner Group, the Battle of Donbas, the Battle of Kharkiv, and the 2022 bombing of Odesa. Also, with every sourced casualty claim I added, I made sure to include “Ukrainian Claim” with each of them, as to distinguish them from any other claims or estimates. I would go in and fix them myself, but he’s admitted to following my editing history. I have all the links that he’s removed, which are also available in the Page History. Every claim that I’ve made against him is backed up by his own edit history, the edit history of the pages, and my own talk page, where he offered no rebuttal to me. WarTranslated also has daily updates from both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian sources, and is the one of the few that translates them into English. As such, it remains a useful source to those of us who don’t understand either of those languages. Here are the links: https://wartranslated.com/day-245-october-26th-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast https://wartranslated.com/day-273-november-23rd-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-145-july-18-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-257-november-7-2022-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-259-november-9th-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-280-november-30th-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://theins.ru/news/250367 | title=Минобороны показало моряков крейсера «Москва» — около 100 человек. В Украине заявляли о гибели экипажа, который оценивали в 500-700 человек }} https://hindustannewshub.com/world-news/putins-private-army-destroyed-in-ukraines-air-strike-hundreds-of-wagner-group-fighters-killed-in-luhansk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You didn't notify the user because you used the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template incorrectly. I've notified the user for you. --Stylez995 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how Arestovych's opinions are reliable sources for anything except for being his opinions. (I did not look at any details of the dispute though). Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

While he does indeed believe the figures that he gives, he is a Ukrainian intelligence officer, and currently works as a National Security and Defence Advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak. I would at least consider him to be a Ukrainian government source. Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 December 2022.

Right, and his role is propaganda, mainly for the Russian-speaking audience.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So is TASS, Podolyak, Girkin, and virtually every other pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian source. Even the countries’ respective defense departments are largely releasing propaganda. By that logic, they should all be removed, but they’re not, and nor should they be, because they’re currently the only figures we have for this war, aside from the occasional independent source. Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 December 2022.

Sure, none of them are reliable sources, and their usage is discuorages (and sometimes prohibited) except for in special situations. If someones starts mass-cite statements to Girkin I will be the first one to make sure the user gets topic banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

While removing mass-cites to Girkin, is more than justified, I don’t actually think that it’s necessary to remove all pro-Russian/Ukrainian sources. It leaves us with a record of what both sides are claiming about each other’s and their own losses. It also may not necessarily be false, just because the estimate is very high/low. Take for example the page on the Iran-Iraq War, or various World War II pages. It helps to compare and contrast what has been claimed with what is confirmed, at the very least. Also, the user in question has also removed sources relating to Russian casualties made by independent observers simply because they are not Russian, which is ridiculous, if you ask me. Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2022

Sockpuppet continues vandalism after being blocked twice

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 is a continuation of two previous ANI reports from August and November of this year regarding sockpuppets of User:AlishaLaurie1 who seem obsessed with posting false information on pages about The Idol (TV series) and actresses who are on it including Suzanna Son, Poppy (singer) and others.

User:Bbb23 claimed in the August November ANI report that the "named user" was blocked for one month. I'm assuming the named user is User:47.16.173.9 because AlishaLaurie1 is still blocked indefinitely. It's been about a month and User:47.16.173.9 is the one who is back making disruptive edits like this that are virtually identical to the ones that got their accounts blocked before. I respectfully suggest blocking the IP indefinitely, but I will leave it to the administrator's discretion. Thank you for your time. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't do indef blocks on IPs. It looks pretty stable though; blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, technically you do indef block IPs. However it's very rare. In fact, the category CAT:INDEFIPs only has 7 IPs in it (excluding the proxy subcategory which I don't think is right since proxies aren't usually indef blocked?) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, OK, yes, you are correct - we sometimes do it, but only in exceptional circumstances. From WP:Blocking_policy#IP_address_blocks: "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely." So yeah - it happens occasionally, but this isn't the kind of exceptional situation that calls for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I probably should've stated that this is definitely not a situation in which the IP would need to be indef blocked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to correct the above report: I didn't do anything as a result of the August ANI report, and in the November ANI thread I said: "I've blocked the named user indefinitely and the IP for one month."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say the November ANI and I still would have gotten it wrong if I got that right. Thanks for the clarification, @Bbb23:. Kire1975 (talk)

(laughing) That's great, thanks for putting a smile on my otherwise grumpy face this cold, snowy morning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 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.

Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur - WP:NOTHERE and WP:NLT violations

See the contributions of the user in question. User page makes it clear they have an agenda. They have also posted legal threats on Talk:India. --SunilNevlaFan✨ 15:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur has posted a legal threat in an edit request at Talk:India [332]. I denied that request and was going to warn them, when I saw they were already warned against making legal threats. Their edit request was denied by one user and removed by another, but Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur reverted both of them [333][334]. I think they should be blocked for repeatedly restoring legal threats. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that's quite enough. Blocked indef. I also merged the two sections here together for the same user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpura has appeared as a sock. I need a block please. SunilNevlaFan✨ 16:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well that was painfully obvious. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

CU tells me that these are socks of an LTA, who has been quite active recently. If any other accounts start doing similar stuff, feel free to ping me, or to report at SPI. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Interesting. Do you know which LTA it is? Thanks. SunilNevlaFan✨ 19:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The Lawn Tennis Association? I jest, I believe he means a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse account. Etrius ( Us) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Group of IPs from the same AS adding gibbish

There has been at least 4 IP addresses from "SakhaTelecom", a Russian ISP in the last 20-30 minutes. ([335], [336], [337], [338]). Would it be possible to put a 24 hour block on the ASN? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

cc @Sheep8144402 TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seconded. The user(s) behind these IPs have been rapidly vandalizing pages linked to on the Main Page, and a rangeblock is desperately needed to prevent further disruption. --SamX 20:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the vandalism seems to have stopped for the time being. --SamX 21:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-blanking of AFD discussion...

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.

---

All--something's up here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Rudd and it seems to be paired with speedy-nominated Jeremy Rudd. I think it's more than just a "speedy" and might call for some action toward User:134.238.191.252. Possible sock... but whatever it is, it isn't normal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You're an administrator, can't you just semiprotect the old AfD and add it to your watchlist, or block the IP vandal for a week, or whatever? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Had a few minutes to checking back--busy day at work, don't have time... Just asking for help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a good thing when an admin who doesn't have time or doesn't know what to do asks for help. I wish we saw that happen more often. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Sure; and I gave some (good) suggestions about “what to do”. Apparently the actual (unstated) request was not “what should I do?” but “I don’t have time right now, could someone else deal with this please?” If that had been explicit, I wouldn’t have framed a response in the same way (actually, I wouldn’t have responded at all). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul McDonald didn't ask "what to do" though, that was an inference on your part. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Christ ANI is the worst. Yes, indeed, when someone makes a post on ANI without explicitly stating what the point is or what they want, every single person who reads it has to make an inference about what it means. I made a quite reasonable inference; then Phil Bridger apparently made an inference about what I wrote (that I thought it was not "a good thing" for Paul McDonald to have posted here), and I clarified my intent (unnecessarily, probably, since the whole thing was already over and done with). Are there any other trivialities of human interaction that I can explain to you while I'm here? Please just delete your comment and this one along with it. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please people--yes, I could have been more direct and specific in asking for help - I just found something that needed attention and had trust in our teammates that someone would look into it who had the time to do so because I was busy with work. And they did. Days ago. It looks to me like it's handled. Close?'--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 20 December 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.

County Route 1 (talk · contribs) and implausible redirects

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.

---

County Route 1 (talk · contribs) has been creating a bunch of unplausible redirects over the last few days, and while it is not vandalism, it is kinda disruptive. What to do? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:43, 20 December 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:Theguywholearnhistory

Per WP:PERSONAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:NOTHERE, this user claims to be "very new" on Wikipedia yet his first activity was to direct insults and personal attacks at me and seems to somehow have rather broad knowledge on other users activity from long before they joined [339] [340] [341], and has recently been found by another user to "recycle" 10 year old citations from completely different contexts [342] in a page that has been marked by long-standing vandalism. Wareno (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the SPI was inconclusive, and it was closed. I don't see how this edit warrants a trip to ANI. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The SPI into this account that started its activity by directing insults at me may have been inconclusive, but you'll find that edit isn't exactly the reason that motivated me to report this account that started its activity by directing insults at me but that the report is more than justified. Wareno (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• The PAs and the possible NOTHERE were discussed in this ANI report from 2 weeks ago. Wareno was advised by two editors (including me) to try to AGF despite the PAs and to engage on talk. The only thing that happened since was that Theguywholearnhistory proposed the addition of some text and that I replied voicing some serious concerns about the proposed text. From a conduct perspective especially the last paragraph is relevant, which I will quote here:

[...] the exact reference Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76 is used in five other articles [343], which suggests that Theguywholearnhistory copied it from these articles. However, in each of these articles the reference is used to support the sentence In 1660, the Portuguese in Mombasa surrendered to a joint Somali-Ottoman force. So only the ref is copied, but the text was not copied and is in fact rather different in content (our article gives 1542 as the date for the Battle of Benadir, in other words some 120 years before the surrender in Mombasa, Kenya). Is this a ghost reference or what? I've searched the history of these five pages, and the earliest addition of this ref and sentence dates from 2009 with the creation of one of these articles [344]. Theguywholearnhistory, can you explain this? Where did you get the ref? Did you read the source?

I would have preferred to let Theguywholearnhistory answer on the article talk page, and perhaps this report should be closed until they do so. That said, I would like to encourage other editors to look into the content issue here, since multiple articles are affected (see no. 5 in my comment at the bottom of Talk:Battle of Benadir). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma since you have advised me to AGF of a user who started its activity by directing personal attacks at me, would you mind elaborating on what the punishment should be for someone who starts its activity on Wikipedia by directing insults at another user? Wareno (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wareno has continuously refused to discuss content, with the sole exception being a reply filled with personal attacks. Their very first act was to file an SPI against Theguywholearnhistory – which was closed as inconclusive – instead of participating in a civilized and productive discussion. Following the SPI, Wareno immediately opened up an ANI thread, which ended up being archived without action and with Wareno being counselled to engage on the talk. Theguywholearnhistory waited for the ANI thread to be closed and then followed the rules by posting a suggestion on the talk, instead of editing the article directly; Wareno replied with a second ANI thread.

Wareno is evidently attempting to use community processes to circumvent consensus-building and get rid of Theguywholearnhistory, instead of engaging in a productive and respectful manner. I don't know if Theguywholearnhistory will be a net positive to the project but this is no way to treat newcomers (or anyone in fact). At this point, I believe that Wareno's conduct is clearly disruptive and that they warrant a warning per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (§4 and §5). Colonestarrice (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice"A reply filled with personal attacks", care to point out what those personal attacks were, since it's suposedly "filled" with them? Was it the fact that I expressed my concern that an account which commenced it's activity by insulting me was a sockpuppet in a page plagued by them? (And which I maintain, so he just started but somehow already knows the history of another user, get real.) If you so far had actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would have realized the changes that the account which started it's activity by directing insults at me wanted to enact were completely non-sensical. Finally, I hope you will also elaborate A) What do you think of commencing ones activity on Wikipedia by directing insults at another user B) Why you have so far made no comment on the fact that this account commenced its activity by insulting someone else but instead only insisted that I should "participate in civilized discussion" (!) with it C) What the penalty should be for an account which commences their activity by insulting other people. Wareno (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wareno, this isn't going anywhere. Editors and admins here (me) are denying the basic premises of your case. Move on. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Colonestarrice on their assessment of Wareno. I had a similar interaction with the user at [345] back in May 2022 as they did at the page Colonestarrice linked. Same accusations of nationalism, sockpuppetry, and refusal to engage in discussion of content. One response they made to me providing sources for my changes, which was a reversion to a long standing version as well, was calling my provision of sources a text wall. Qiushufang (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

174.95.137.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Editor has received multiple warnings about failing to add sources but is continuing to do so. Also found one case where additions only vaguely verified against the source (Special:Diff/1128541512). ON a wider note, editor has also been engaged in disruptive editing by adding - very prominently - the relationship of the Republic of China to articles that are only somewhat related to the ROC (particularly with de facto independent non-Chinese states arising from the end of the Qing Empire); other ROC annoyances include adding that the ROC took over Taiwan from Japan after the Second World War at seemingly every opportunity.

Editor has likely been doing this for much of the year under previous IPs (76.68.77.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 142.112.236.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and has been - on the whole - unresponsive on their talk page. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr Ernie 1RR violation, edit warring over dispute tag

• User DN adds dispute tag: "considering this is an ongoing discussion AND there is a current RfC - we need more eyes on this, and it is preferable to a blanket POV tag"
• Mr Ernie removes tag 14:34, 18 December 2022
• Zaathura restores tag
• Mr Ernie reverts tag for second time claiming 1RR exemption. 16:12, 18 December 2022
• Zaathura warns on talk that 1RR has been breached.
• Mr Ernie claims 1RR does not apply to his removals
• On talk, at least one user has encouraged Ernie to continue violating 1RR on this matter and offered to help edit war to keep the tag off the page during the RFC.

Obviously, a dispute does exist, RFC and discussion are very active on talk. Advice and assistance welcome. Feoffer (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Could admins please start page blocking editors who continue to edit against RFC consensus? This has wasted an enormous amount of time. How many noticeboard threads have been started? I begged for help at one of the recent ones. I’m really sorry that a few editors don’t like this consensus, but I think we are far past the point of reason here. Just a quick question as a sanity check - when there is RFC consensus for content, that has been challenged and upheld at a review, can editors still just ignore that ad nauseam until everyone else gives up and the ones who didn’t like the RFC result get their way? Even if they really, really don’t like it? This is what’s been happening, for months now. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, what vindictive and unnecessary filing. The tag was inappropriate because it was just another way of saying "alleged" in contravention of the RfC previously closed (and another is open on same topic now) and as I stated on the Talk Page, Ernie was free to self-revert as I would have undone tag for that exact reason.The problem is neither chronic or intractable unless disagreeing with Feoffer is against the rules of Wikipedia but then again his own edit warring and others have been ignored as minor but hey let's play gotcha now. Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Xtools report to show their edits have been primarily to force their view.

And just realized I am a party despite no notification and stand by my comment. It was an inappropriate edit that had already been reverted numerous times. Stating I'd revert as well is not edit warring. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

With due respect, I seem to recall @Feoffer: having breached the 3RR/24hr edit limit (when the page was under that limitation), back on (in spirit) on Dec 4 & on Dec 6, 2022. Also, I seem to recall that Feoffer refused to undo both breaches. If requested, I'll provide the diffs of Feoffer's edit-warring then, to add a 'dispute tag'. Feoffer may have also edit-warred under the current 1RR rule, on December 15, 2022. If required, I'll provide those diffs, too. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a frivolous filing by an editor who is trying to defy consensus. A boomerang would seem to be the appropriate result. The tediousness has become utterly ridiculous, and clearly the attempts to disregard consensus will persist until proper sanctions are imposed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer excluded from the timeline their own revert restoring the dispute tag. They have previously used reversions to keep this tag in place (1, 2) and were warned that this was edit warring contrary to the result of an RfC. I wouldn't mind seeing page blocks, 0RR, or topic bans used to remove disruptive editors from the topic area, though the ridiculous DS alert system makes it difficult to determine who is even able to be sanctioned. ST47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer's also been busy pinging editors to the talkpage of Hunter Biden laptop controversy, asking them if they would support an edit of his. Though the editors have already participated at the talkpage, the pinging of them does have a canvass feel to it, if not actually a breach of canvass. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The dispute on the page far predates my involvement and I'm eager to follow the rules. To my knowledge, there is no 1RR exemption of the sort Ernie claimed. To my knowledge, admins have instructed us to discuss amongst ourselves to try to forge win-win compromise language that could garner a strong consensus. If I'm mistaken, I welcome learning. As I said elsewhere, it seems I stand "accused" by you of the charge "trying to find a compromise" to this longstanding dispute. Feoffer (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Could we please get a partial block for the blatant canvassing by Feoffer on the talk page? Whatever potential agreement Feoffer and his chosen editors find doesn’t overrule RFC consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To show someone is WP:CANVASSING, you must also show that the intended effect is to introduce more editors who share the violator's viewpoint.
Can you demonstrate that is the case? Do these editors mostly support Feoffer's viewpoint? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've only contacted people already on talk. So far as I know, canvassing is only bringing new people into the discussion, not asking current talk page participants if they could support a new potential compromise. Again, eagered to be educated if i'm wrong about that. Feoffer (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I reached out to people from all sides of the debate -- I don't know if all sides will support it or not, but I have asked. Feoffer (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer only pinged editors who opposed the consensus from the RFC or have complained about it on the talk page. If Feoffer is serious about this compromise they need to start a new RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1128110143,Special:Diff/1128428781, Special:Diff/1128430103, Special:Diff/1128427855, Special:Diff/1128427855

I am not aware of a single ping above being to an editor who has a contrarian viewpoint. And the responses of some are concerning as they admittedly have not read the winding discussion that is in the RfC and three or four other threads on the talk page. Slywriter (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

they need to start a new RFC.

That's entirely possible! At minimum, a closer would have to correctly interpret 'OPTION 1' as opposition to the compromise proposal. I can't just ping a subset of people on talk, get their agreement, and just ignore the views of people like you who are on the record opposing any compromise wording of this sort. I honestly don't know what the best step forward would be -- I was going to ask Awilley and Jayron for advice on how to proceed if the proposal gets enough support to be worthy of pursuing. Feoffer (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The intro should be restored to its status (i.e. OPTION 1), right before the 'current' RFC was opened. By making changes to the page intro, while the RFC is ongoing? one creates confusion & frustration. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with current first sentence, so I don't necessarily disagree. We really need _some_ advertisement on the page for the RFC, so readers will know it exists and can help us find good solutions. I know you and ernie don't like "disputed", and I don't much care what languages is used, but we need some sign on the page that says "hey, readers, come help us with this RFC". Don'tchya think that would help speed this process up? Feoffer (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Legobot has taken care of advertising the RFC & I also left neutrally worded messages about the RFC, at three (WP:POLITICS, WP:USG & WP:LAW) related WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I did check over & from what I can gather, Feoffer (so far) has pinged 12 editors (some didn't participate in the 'survey' section of the current RFC) who already mostly oppose the pre-Dec 4, 2022 intro. Feoffer only pinged 1 of 11 editors (who all appeared in the 'survey' section of the current RFC) who support the pre-Dec 4, 2022 intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, unless it turns out I'm doing something wrong, I'm by no means done discussing a potential compromise, I think there are undoubtedly others in the "option 1" group who could support some sort of compromise language, if only we can just find the right language. Finally, I want to recognize that there ARE people, like yourself, who have stated a strong opposition to compromise, and those views DO count. As I told Slywriter when he asked why I didn't ping him, no one was trying to exclude you from the discussion. There is no point in asking whether someone can support a potential Win-Win compromise when they have already stated their opposition. You are on the record, we know where you stand -- to ping you and demand you reiterate it would just waste your time and mine. Feoffer (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You should've posted your compromise proposal, into the ongoing RFC as OPTION 5. Not make a bold edit & then ping some editors for support. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a spin job. I'd imagine those who oppose your so-called 'win-win compromise' don't see it as a 'win-win'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

He's still trying to recruit more editors to support it. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU: user Melliza Slippers Oh

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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Melliza Slippers Oh is constantly adding links to copyright violations (on youtube, vimeo, dailymotion) to articles about old TV shows. It seems as if they have a Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue, a mobile editor not responding to any messages, and not using talk or user talk pages at all. Can someone draw their attention with a short block (or whatever means works in such a case)? Fram (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fram blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I misread that as "Fram is blocked" and thought "Oh no, not again..." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

How long until there's an ArbCom case about WP:MELLIZASLIPPERSOHGATE? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:41, 21 December 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.

ASCII art vandalism at AfD that is suspected copyvio

The IP user 209.68.99.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted a Braille-based variation of ASCII art at 22 AfD pages (example). This would normally be a pure WP:AIV concern, and indeed the issue is already at AIV, but I came here because the ASCII art seems to be a derivative work of an unknown Internet meme, so RD1 is likely required as a presumptive measure. Affected AfD pages:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnePlus 11
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper Chimney
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress (software)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Ball (writer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King (rapper)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Guild of Film Critics Award for Best Animated Film
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kal Tumi Aleya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle condition
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organoargon chemistry
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shehnaz Quadery
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Music Festival
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lichen checklists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maninderjeet Singh Bitta
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welspun One
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Start (song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Udit Narayan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Sadhana Sargam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Telugu songs recorded by P. Susheela
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Asha Bhosle
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kal Tumi Aleya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dui Bhai
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleta Musaj

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are unable to discern the image on your device, it is a cartoon of a bald human head with a wrinkly, indescernible face and a speech bubble above them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For the unawares the ASCII art is of a derivation of Wojak. I do not believe it is a copyright issue. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wojak. Nothing to worry about. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have declined the AIV report since the user has not edited since the last warning. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is, specifically, a soyjak, probably the version where he is crying and gritting his teeth. I am not entirely sure what the copyright status of these works is, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that a single artist could ever claim original authorship due to their collaborative origins. jp×g 04:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Javad Ibrahimov

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.

---

Javad Ibrahimov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE user whose talk page is filled with warnings for a good reason. Every single edit of this user has been reverted, and with good reason. They're all pov edits, adding anachronistic/irrelevant Azerbaijani-Latin transliterations, altering sourced information (such as changing "Iran" to "Azerbaijan", or simply just randomly slamming the word "Azerbaijan" into everything), and so on (eg [346] [347] [348] [349] [350] [351]). HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked, there's nothing useful here. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: What about his leftovers[352][353] on Sallarid dynasty and Safavid Iran? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I reverted them, thanks! Looks like he is editing under a different name now [354]. I'll make an SPI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:16, 21 December 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 accounts most likely sock puppet account of Prince Of Roblox AllahEngineering (talk · contribs) and AbdulForever (talk · contribs)

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.

---

Please take a look at this new account [355] which is editing the exact same article they were reverted on and also this one [356] which is basically adding back what WazirMadan (talk · contribs) was can admins block and protect these pages as this account seems very capable of evading blocks and edit warring continously. Kmartdeeee (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

[357] Also noticed the same Edit on Kotli page as WazirMadan account highly likely to be a sock puppet. Please also note the religous use of usernames to be offensive. Kmartdeeee (talk) 13:49, 21 December 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.

Could you please remove TPA from User talk:63.152.0.2

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.

---

They're spamming their user talk with emojis. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC).

There's a fairly high bar for removing TPA from IP addresses, in case the address has multiple users. Looks like they've only spammed the page once and been reverted (by you) for their troubles. Suggest re-reporting if it keeps happening, otherwise ignore them and let's see what happens when the block expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I probably was a little hasty. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:55, 21 December 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:GAMING by SPECIFICO, and continuation of generally unpleasant editing (2)

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

Could an admin PLEASE review this thread? I posted this thread 5 days ago, and it was archived before any admin so much as commented. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally, if a discussion is auto-archived, it means that editors stopped contributing to it, and that no admin saw enough value in it to act. Also, sanctions are designed to stop ongoing disruption - has SPECIFICO done anything since the thread was archived which requires admin action to stop their behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, if any admins who read my thread saw there wasn't enough value to act, I wish they would've at least commented to say so. I would've liked to at least HEARD from an admin saying that kind of behavior isn't sanctionable, and ergo functionally permissible.

Regarding their recent editing activity, they have slowed down, and I haven't seen anything explicitly GAME-y from them where we're still both contributing - but truthfully, that's exactly what I would expect. Who, after being informed that their behavior was going to be scrutinized at AN/I, wouldn't start trying to be a bit nicer? In my previous thread, I linked 4 separate AE cases where admins had previously admonished this user for their behavior. At what point are admonishments and warnings to cool off considered ineffectual, when a user has a history of heating things back up again? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe its just time to move along? Just because you think someone did something bad and worthy of sanction doesn't make it so. Focus more on content and less than trying to remove an opponent from the chessboard.ValarianB (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if you disagree that this complaint is worth pursuing, I feel I've raised fair questions, and gotten no answers.

If the answer to "what can we do about editors behaving poorly" is honestly "Not much - admins have to choose to enforce the rules" then that is 100% fine with me. That's the conclusion I'm starting to come to anyway, with how little attention this has all received. As long as I get some closure from this ANI experience, I won't feel so bad. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin remark but I am certainly an experienced user and one who has been on several sides of adminning in the past. As I suggested in the thread before it was archived, I believe WP:AE is the right place to sanction editors for violating DS, or maybe WP:DRN is a better place to go. Instead of considering that suggestion, you unarchived the thread to the wrong place by mistake. OK, fine, new editors make mistakes. Now you are posting about it again, which I suppose you were told to do. OK. Fine. I have no special authority here, but my advice is that an editor whose account was created in August should probably not be so stridently pushing this kind of a report in December, and the silence on your first report was deafening. Many reports are posted here and if nobody saw fit to reply, you should not just repost with no new information. Quite simply, your allegation of GAMING lacked sufficient evidence for action, or evidence of disruption was inconclusive. Andre🚐 23:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite simply, your allegation of GAMING lacked sufficient evidence for action, or evidence of disruption was inconclusive. I included 29 diffs worth of evidence, so I don't believe that was insufficient. And as I said above, if any admin that read my post had thought the evidence was inconclusive, why did nobody leave a comment saying so? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the idea that SPECIFICO is violating the spirit of the policy or is in bad faith pushing twisted wikilawyering arguments, stonewalling, or not following a consensus or not getting the point. Your evidence is rather thin for this. The reality is that it's a contentious dispute with lots of people on both sides engaging on the substance. In my opinion you haven't shown destabilizing or disruptive editing beyond what would probably merit a warning if that. Andre🚐 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

if any admin that read my post had thought the evidence was inconclusive, why did nobody leave a comment saying so?

Because it's not necessary to spell out that they're not going to take action. Frankly, if an admin bothers to say "this isn't going to result in action," it means you've annoyed the admins enough they feel it necessary to ask you to drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be right - it is not strictly necessary for admins to say anything around here. But it is not intuitive to assume that "no response" == "complaint is not actionable". Especially when there are plenty of threads that admins comment in literally telling people their complaints aren't actionable.

I apologize for not knowing all the norms around here, as I'm a fairly new editor. But it is darn irritating to feel like you're being ignored. Before even coming to ANI, I asked an admin's opinion of the best way to get a resolution for something like this - they directed me here. So, I took the time to curate a post, search out diffs, and format it all in a legible way. And not one admin responded.

If that's the way things work around here, then fine - I'll learn that lesson, and I won't make the same mistakes. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

As Andrevan mentioned. DRN or AE, would likely be the more proper places. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

DRN is for "small content disputes" only; can't see it being the fit for a behavioral issue. And AE, as I understand it, is only for explicit violations of page restrictions/DS, and I have no evidence of such explicit infractions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• @PhotogenicScientist: You must notify SPECIFICO of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Understood - and done. I thought the original notice from 5 days ago may be sufficient, and didn't want to unnecessarily clutter their talk page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

At AE, the community provides input and admins discuss the input and make the decisions. At ANI, an admin may take action for urgent incidents (those which are glaringly obvious with ongoing disruption). However, ANI, despite the word administrator, is a bit different as the community often comes to an agreement and an admin acts on that agreement if it requires an admin bit. If the filing is not urgent, and the community doesn’t appear that interested; admins may see no reason to take part in the filing other than for procedural issues. In any case, reopening a discussion without good reason is frowned upon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just keeping this section alive in hopes that someone will actually care enough to do something, or not, instead of letting it just disappear. Arkon (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia is structured to be able to deal with the described situation, and doubly so for this particular venue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:GAMING is an official guideline. It's not as strict as a policy, but it is consensus-backed and accepted by the community. While it seems we expect editors to abide by guidelines, there does appear to be less-structured enforcement of them than of policies.

The behavioral guideline banner doesn't mention anything about enforcement - it just says "editors should attempt to follow" it. Only a few guideline pages have tips on dealing with editors not following the guideline, and GAMING isn't one of them:

• "Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence." (from WP:AGF)
• "If [canvassing] continues, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning." (from WP:CANVASS)
• And WP:DISRUPT has a whole flowchart to follow, starting with "ask them to stop" and "discuss on talk pages," but the answer to several steps is "make a post at ANI."

All of that is why I first came here not asking for enforcement or sanctions - I just wanted to bring this to the admins' attention, so that they could decide what should be done. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

To emphasize, my previous post was not a critique of your efforts. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that - and sorry for the lengthy reply to such a small comment. After reading your comment, I realized something that I had noticed about guidelines in general. Just wanted to commit that to the page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Incivility from User: Dim. Nor. 86

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: Dim. Nor. 86 has ostensibly been retired from Wikipedia for the last two months, but it seems like they just woke up from their two-night bender celebrating Argentina’s World Cup win to post this on my talk page. I suggest this user be indefinitely blocked from editing anything other than their own talk page to prevent any further outbursts, especially given that they announced their retirement from Wikipedia back in early October. – PeeJay 13:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

NOTHING TO DO WITH A FANBOY.... Whoever loves football, loves Messi. Apparently you are not a football lover....That's for sure... I know you are in deep pain but it is ok, time will pass and you will feel better some years later. MESSI IS NOW EVERYONE'S G.O.A.T. Goodbye to you and goodbye to wikipedia.... YOU ALL HIDE MESSI'S RECORDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS ON PURPOSE ! GOODBYE .................... Dim. Nor. 86 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31h for this. Messi is just one-time world champion, and there are plenty of two-time champions, and Pele won it three times. Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Pele over MessiThem's fightin' wordsBurma-shave — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:49, 21 December 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 Amr.elmowaled, repeated policy violations

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.

---

Amr.elmowaled is a new user who apparently is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. In their short time at WP, they already picked up lots of warnings from Doug Weller, Slatesteven and myself for their problematic edits, including edit warring [358], [359], [360], [361], racism, and WP:ARBPIA violations. The final straw (given I had already warned them over previois racism) is insinuating that Wikipedia is "Zionist". [362] Absolutely nothing suggests this user is here to contribute productively. Jeppiz (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Indef'd for WP:NOTHERE. This on the heels of a page block as well for their racist comments. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore Thanks. Good block, glad it was another Admin so they couldn't complain I was picking on them. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Thanks for reporting them --Mann Mann (talk) 08:27, 22 December 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.

Another user keeps undoing my edits without any explanations

I really didn't wanted to come to this, I left a message on their talk section, but since they deleted it, I had no choice but to report.

User:WikiMaster2K15 keeps undoing my edits. For example, I edited the World of Stardom Championship, where I made equal space before any = sign to make it more comfortable for the editor to read, but they removed those spaces even when I explained why I'm asking not to remove. I also seen another user complained sbout it to them on their talk page at November.

Also, I use the sortname template on any championship reign section so it would able to organize it alphabetically, you can see the same on List of WWE Champions, but they removed it as well.

I do not asking for that user to be banned or removed, but I tried to voiced my frustration about this which they ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeosiWrestling (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@SeosiWrestling: I'm not an admin or anything, but I just wanted to let you know that, in case you haven't heard, this user has now recently been blocked from editing pages in the article namespace due to failing to communicate. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware, thank you. That didn't what I wanted to happened, but I'm not the only one he did it to. SeosiWrestling (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Alwardamin

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely as promotional-only Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This user (User:Alwardamin) has a serious conflict of interest - still, they are not willing to stop their edits (continue to add fake/spam references) and discuss it first. Here, they called the university article our page as if they own it and in the end mention "University of science and technology Sanaa Yemen" which is their campus name, so clearly they are an employee of the university campus. For background, this university's original campus was in Sanaa, but it was taken over by Houthis (by force), changed curriculum, installed their puppet administration, and is no longer considered a legitimate campus as government of Yemen doesn't recognize it. The main campus is now in Aden as shown by reliable sources. More discussion here. Furthermore, this user has a history of sockpuppetry, so block to make them realize that they are wrong here is needed:

• Alwardamin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ameen ward (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aminward (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks. 87.200.16.71 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:My history teacher

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely as a sock by jpgordon Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• My history teacher (talk · contribs)

This is another sockpuppet of the indeffed User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 created a few days ago involved in active disruption, starting with a few edits adding tags and links, then proceeding to jump onto Talk:Kryvyi Rih and edit war to restore a deleted comment by another blocked sock of his[363][364] and calling another admin who reverted the edit a sock in the edit summary and even leaving a warning[365] on his talk page, now trying to restore his edits[366] on Old East Slavic literature that got another one of his sockpuppets blocked[367][368] and now edit warring again. None of the edits are constructive anyway. It is getting annoying at this point so probably the article Old East Slavic literature also needs protection since he keeps returning to it. Mellk (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The user is now stalking my edits and tried to delete this thread immediately after it was posted.[369] Mellk (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Again[370]. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Mellk (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes by Rayane 77 (third time's the charm?)

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Rayane 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two previous ANIs: [371][372]

Despite a final warning by an admin, in addition to the previous ones, no change in behaviour whatsoever: [373]. BilletsMauves^€500 17:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

More BLP issues from Einahr

Resolved

 – Blocked for a month Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Less than 5 days off @Jayron32:'s 1 week block for WP:BLP issues, Einahr (talk · contribs) is adding more unsourced, potentially damaging info about living people: [374], [375]. Toddst1 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there sir/ma'am Toddst1 (talk · contribs) this is the link for List of the first openly LGBT holders of political offices about my edit last day [376][377] thank you. — Einahr (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those links support either what you allege about Sotto, nor Hererera's year of birth. Citations go in the article, not on WP:ANI. You've had plenty of warnings, nudges and even a week-long block about that. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated problematic behavior by ‎Benlisquare

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.

---

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

Hello, administrators. Editor Benlisquare is engaged in a campaign of spamming their user-generated sexist "busty young girl" images. This has been ongoing since at least September 27, when they added to the Stable Diffusion article 95 "busty young girl" images,[378] with all 95 of those being user-generated images created by Benlisquare using an AI program they've specifically typed the prompt of "busty young girls" into. Multiple editors have politely attempted to explain to Benlisquare that this behavior is a problem, with for example editor Colin M saying these images are an example of WP:BIAS[379] and that there is no reason to create images of "sexualized young women" ... distracting and borderline WP:GRATUITOUS."[380] Editor Ichiji describes these as "exploitive images,"[381] editor Ovinus has described these as "pictures appealing to the male gaze ... nothing special about these,"[382] and editor MrOllie saying the "'busty girl' image was a literal poster child for WP:SYSTEMICBIAS"[383] and a "sexualized image."[384] I have suggested multiple compromises, such as that instead of user-generated images we could use images from reliable sources[385] or if we do use user-generated images they might be based on commonly used AI art prompts rather than a single editor's focus on "busty young girls,"[386] however ‎Benlisquare has refused to compromise. After being repeatedly told their images were problematically sexist, they have now created a new image that also seems problematic in regards to race and religion, by now drawing their busty young girl wearing a hijab, referring to it as the "halal edition," drawing a pale-skinned arm on the girl's body, and then inserting that image into the article claiming that nobody responding to them within 24 hours is a sign of group consensus,[387] and then edit warring when I do state objection to their latest problematic drawing.[388]

I feel we have been exceedingly polite to an editor who has spammed about 100 of their drawings of "busty young girls" into a single article; however, their response has been denial that there is any issue, and to respond with escalating profanity, incivility, and personal attacks. For example, "your messiah Vladimir Putin ... shit ... shit ... boners ... shithole,"[389] and to respond to concerns with links to more inappropriate images and to embed multiple pornographic images into the article's talk page.[390]

This seems to me to be pretty clear-cut sexual harassment. If in any other collaborative project such as in a school or a workplace, if one of the collaborators were bringing in about a hundred of their drawings of "busty young girls" and responding to collaborators with pornographic links and images, that collaborator would be removed from the project. They have shown no sign that they understand that their behavior is problematic, and instead seem to be getting worse. If any administrators can provide assistance here, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to boil down to a think of the children plea. Also, the changing the image to a woman in a headscarf seems like it should have alleviated the original concern about "busty women". So, why are you here, if the original image has been retired? ValarianB (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

probably because of the very strong incivility. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It's certainly creepy, sexist, obsessive, and seems to involve derivative images that may not have a free source. There's no reason to keep inserting many sexualized images into an article focused on imaging technology. The personal attack is blockable in any case. Please remember to notify Belisquare of this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

They tried to but mangled the template; I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The so-called sexist image in question has been replaced. Also, it appears that this Belisquare has created the images themselves, so there's no licensing issue. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Laundering a sampled image through an image generator doesn't make something self-created. This is a consistent issue with AI content in general. And honestly, 100 images of a subject with different boob sizes and nasty responses isn't advancing the encyclopedia or illustrating the concept. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Christ on a cracker, what an amazingly terrible response. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

benlisquare's most recent edits were to tell elspea that All you are capable of is pounding the table and yelling. You have zero interest in collaboratively and constructively building an encyclopedia. Just grow up. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

benlisquare’s incivility certainly needs to be addressed, but the matter regarding the sexualized nature of the original image seems to have been addressed/resolved. How is the current image in any way inappropriate? Seems like the OP is just upset they didn’t get their way. ANI should not be used as a means to settle a content dispute. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1C92:6D1E:A8F5:353D (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Initial image

So if I have this correctly... Ben has been adding AI-generated images to articles about AI-generated images, for example, adding File:Demonstration of inpainting and outpainting using Stable Diffusion (step 1 of 4).png to Stable Diffusion, which I've posted here as "Ben's initial image". Then, when people complained that all of these images were depicting "busty" women, Ben responded by revising the image to File:Demonstration of inpainting and outpainting using Stable Diffusion, halal edition (step 1 of 4).png. Note the filename, "halal edition", and this amazingly bigoted comment announcing the change: Alhamdulillah she has seen the folly of her ways, and has learned to embrace modesty and the grace of Allah. Fatima (fictional character, any resemblance to a real-world Fatima is purely coincidental) shall no longer partake in the folly and hedonism of decadent fashion, inshallah. This is on the heels of other amazingly uncivil comments, like You are obsessed. Heaven forbid somebody depict your messiah Vladimir Putin in a less-than-positive light, huh.

So to recap:

sexualization of women

mocking Islam

incivility

personal attacks

Indef this editor, please. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You forgot depicting Reimu as "busty"/lh a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 17:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

More than a few things on this website are less than ideal for showing your grandma. But when one goes from approaching topics that require more explicit depiction to shoehorning sexualization into articles about other topics, that's NOTHERE behavior. The replies that Levivich details are enough on their own to warrant a serious response, much less when they follow the disruptive edits that preceded them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich, how is any of this acceptable? nableezy - 18:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly good with an indef. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

An indef would seem reasonable. Given that Benlisquare seems to thing that "grow up" is appropriate advice to give to contributors, we should ask for the same from them. Unblock if and when Benlisquare acknowledges that their behaviour regarding this matter has been juvenile, and that Wikipedia articles aren't a platform for the gratuitous sexualisation of "young girls". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be an open forum for pervs and religious bigots. I would indef if I still could, and I hope someone else will. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Especially given the copyright concerns with the image libraries used with AI art, I don't think this content can even be licensed freely (how much it is a derivative work is something that will have to get hashed out in courts.) Beyond that, if Ben doesn't understand why people are objecting and is getting POINTY with his edits, a block of some sort is appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen has now indeffed them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have indefinitely blocked Benlisquare for disruptive editing and harassment. Thanks to all the editors who assessed their misconduct so well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for you prompt action, Cullen328. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Good block, @Cullen328. Thanks. Jahaza (talk) 20:23, 22 December 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.

History of problematic editing by Kinfo Pedia (talk · contribs)

Several administrators and experienced editors have engaged the editor, but until now they've mostly observed contributions to isolated articles. The problematic history is much more extensive, and includes a major overhaul of Glenn Miller--see this reversion I performed yesterday, the tip of the iceberg [391]--an elaborate update and more elaborate discussion of John Hoogenakker, and edits since reverted at Secretariat (horse) and Orvil A. Anderson. Talk pages reveal the difficulties [392]; [393], which are time sinks just to wade through and indicate prolonged involvement by other editors. A sample of sections that suggest some of the issues: [394]; [395]. Kinfo Pedia was questioned re: WP:COI at Hoogenakker, and though they seem to be corresponding with the subject, my initial read is that the more relevant COI may involve the author of a 2017 biography of Miller. That said, COI is almost beside the point; the question is whether the benefits are worth the disruption. See my reversions of off-topic and poorly sourced/original research content [396]; [397]; [398]; [399].

Among administrators, Justlettersandnumbers and Jayron32 have recently reverted some bizarre edits at American black bear and Chincoteague Pony. Experienced editors who have put in more than their share of time cleaning up are AngusWOOF and DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Prior to opening this thread, a conversation was begun at my previous IP talk page [400]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Was I supposed to reply to the top paragraph so everyone could see it, or can the lower paragraphs be read too? I am not sure what the abbreviations mean since I am still very new to Wikipedia. I am not sure how you know if a source is good to use. I think someone who wrote their own resume would have it correct. If it is wrong, then it is probably their talent agent staff who typed it wrong. For Miller, the experts involved included well-known, accurate historians and researchers. People who wanted to be in the news claimed they dropped bombs on a small plane when in fact, planes were grounded that day. It was an exception to policy that Morgan landed and took off without even stopping the plane. I found this out in many sources that used their well-researched sources themselves. I got permission and quotes from the experts. I had to prove how he spelled his name and cite the sources, when someone thought it was not verifiable. I don't think they will be putting a 100-year-old yearbook online. It 's a rare book now. Thanks for trying to help. I didn't know so many people were looking at it, they should assume I am right, that would be considerate. Thanks for your help. If someone wants to put info. in there that makes something accurate with sources, then that is good, but if not, it really hurts my feelings and I am sad on behalf of the subject of the article even though they don't know me. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I got permission from the author to quote the main book. People should give me the benefit of their doubt. I don't go in there writing something wrong on purpose. Be patient. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to know who started the Hoogenakker page. I had thought of doing that but have not yet learned how to start a page, or use the sandbox. When I make an edit, and then put in the box why I made the edit, is anyone reading that and understanding why the change should be made? People should not assume I am wrong. Thanks again. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kinfo Pedia, I think you need to slow down. Here's one huge paragraph that wanders all over the place, with two additional ones. I already don't understand what you mean with top paragraph etc. I think you should look at WP:THREAD--maybe that's related to your question. One knows a source is good to use by learning about sources; there's no way I can give you that in one paragraph since it takes us weeks in Freshman Comp, but you can start by looking at WP:REPUTABLE. What I tell my students is that if they cannot explain what a particular source is and how they get and verify their information, they can't use it.

To go back and explain why some edits were reverted--well, this was your first edit to the Glenn Miller article and I don't understand much of what you're doing and why, but what I do see is that some text and some sources were removed. I don't know about "well-known, accurate historians and researchers", since all you're adding in terms of citations is this, "Shenkle, Kathy, "Glenn Miller: America's Musical Hero", U.S. Army, Arlington, 1993", which lacks publication information, is improperly formatted (and incorrectly cited throughout), and doesn't seem to be something from a well-known historian or whatever. And now you're talking about someone called "Morgan", completely out of context, and I have to go an look at your edits from September to make any sense of it, and I can't make any sense of it.

Forest, trees--we are here to discuss things that are problematic about your editing, and you are not focusing on the main topic--I mean, what the hell does a 100-year old yearbook matter in this conversation? That is a matter for the article talk page. But you are really not so "new" to Wikipedia: this was months ago, lots of time to learn about reliable sources, talk page conversation, how to do references. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, where do I even start, mainly with having to clean up the John Hoogenakker article after any wave of editing they have done:

• There is strong WP:OWN ownership and insistence that John Hoogenakker's biography be formatted to be a more accurate resume than what the resume his own website has. I have tried to cut down the filmography and stage roles to what was available via external sources. I have told the editor that they should work on creating their own fan website if they really want all those details.
• There was insistence in detailing the count of the number of plays, episodes, views of commercials using ispot.tv, which is not a reliable source. Television actors star in hundreds, even thousands of episodes, so this isn't anything special. Hoogenakker isn't a YouTuber whose viewer counts and subscribers are milestones.
• Tendentious editing to include exact episodes and role names where it cannot be sourced at the moment besides IMDb or Fandom.
• Tendentious editing to detail Walter the Cat's involvement, calling Hoogenakker a "co-star" to the cat on the series, and going into extensive detail about the cat and the trucks.
• Tendentious editing to remove Wikipedia links in the early life and education paragraphs.
• Tendentious editing to rename the mention of Zoom to videoconference, even though the magazine article already detailed that he auditioned via Zoom for one of his roles.
• Tendentious editing to remove any mention of birthdays, wife and number of kids, even though there are sourced news articles that explicitly state his age, and a primary source interview where he specifies his month and day of his birthday.

Onel5969 and I have tried to work with their edits, but if we let it go for much longer, it gravitates towards turning into a fansite piece. The actor does have a large body of work and does meet general notability, so I apologize in advance if my writeup of John Hoogenakker's biography is rather dry (e.g. lots of "In (year) he did (role) in (production)") AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, Kinfo Pedia has extensively overhauled the Glenn Miller article, mostly not in a productive way. They add a lot of nonencyclopedic detail, such as a book review of a book about the subject and a bulleted list of nine examples of how the subject's name has been spelled. In this edit, they add the same reference in 74(!) places, often to statements that are already referenced, and they've made similar edits more than once (eg. here). An edit summary says I added superscripts for footnotes for every sentence I know to be true from the public exhibits, news articles, the original archived article Arlington National Cemetery and the Glenn Miller Birthplace Society that I researched and confirmed with the experts at GMA, GMBS and the Airmen of Note, the last part of which in particular suggests that there is some original research and/or WP:COI going on.

As can be seen on the article's talk page, at least 8 other editors have questioned some aspect of their changes. Kinfo Pedia's only response has been to bizarrely keep repeating the same sentence, Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944, which is sometimes not even relevant to the other editor's question.

The editor's talk page shows that they are more than willing to communicate, quite prolifically so, but their communication style is so prolix that it's often hard to understand their point. I think there's an element of WP:CIR as well. CodeTalker (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They don't seem to really understand referencing: as noted above this is not great, to put it mildly. There seems to be a tendency towards hagiography, as witness the Hoogenakker comments above, and their removal of the section which voiced, with sources, some mild criticism of Glenn Miller. They are a busy editor who works hard and it seems a pity that they don't communicate better and learn from what people are trying to tell them. If they could listen and work cooperatively with the rest of us that would be great but it they won't listen then I fear for their future here. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the questions this raises is whether Glenn Miller is best served by reverting back to a pre-Kinfo version. That means undoing hundreds of edits, but it's a prominent enough bio to consider the damage done. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this the right place to answer the paragraphs above? I just found this for the first time. I am not able to find all the comments and talk pages, when I click on the bell, I cannot figure out where anyone wrote a note. It says "welcome". I am working VERY HARD to get everything correct in the topics I like. This is my informational legacy since I don't have any children. Whenever there is something wrong, I go and look up the facts and get sources from the other experts. When someone spelled Glenn Miller's birth name wrong, I had to correct it and make folks understand that he changed the spelling of his name during high school. I even got copies of the yearbooks at his high school, and learned that he was a co-editor of his own yearbook, and used Glenn and Glen at different times in each one. Since someone wrote that it was not "verified", I went out of my way to find out, even finding articles about his birth certificate. Many people got it wrong because they were in a hurry, so I had to correct it, and prove how he changed the spelling of his name from Glen to Glenn. I confirmed everything I found with several sources to see which source is the best to use. We should not quote sources that are wrong, even if many people have quoted it wrong. I once found sentence that 8 articles quoted the same source, and the source quote was wrong, so it spread the wrong information. Teachers and others are telling kids NOT to use Wikipedia for research because contributors don't always do the complete research. Is it "vandalism" when people delete the information I put on there that is correct? Sometimes they do it as I am writing, and it makes me stay up late trying to correct it. When someone is in doubt, then I look up the sources again to see who quoted what. Let's get it right, and give Wikipedia a better reputation. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I found several source for the character name of Hoogenakker's first television role. I don't understand why others keep deleting his character name, Dr. Collins. People shouldn't have anything against the name of the role he played.

Oh, I think it is harassment when others are complaining about my work. If they have the good information, then go ahead and put it where it fits in the paragraph and footnote it. Another good idea is to separate the sentence into a paragraph on its own so people can see it to easily research it or edit it. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

several sources, not source. typo. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hoogenakker birthday thing --- I thought we were supposed to keep personal data out of the article because he is a LIVING person, and the things I read about how to write a page included that we don't put something just because someone accidentally revealed the information in another site. I heard a few interviews where he talked around the date, so I thought, well, he does not want to put the actual date in and would prefer to keep that out of the pubic eye. His not living in Hollywood is a sign that he does not want to be out in the open like regular movie actors. so- I was empathizing or whatever you call it when you are looking out for people. Thanks. I thought maybe he does not want to have a Wikipedia page because he made it this far, 2022 without having one. Since it's on here now, let's get it right. I guess that is what my fellow writers were saying about ispot.tv which I assumed was correct because of the detail of the numbers. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how I got to this section, so don't get mad if I can't get here to see your reply. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggested here that this should be brought to this board – there seems to be enough of a problem that community input is needed. I'm in no doubt that Kinfo Pedia wants to improve the encyclopaedia, but unfortunately he/she seems to charging in where angels fear to tread and creating substantial amounts of work for other editors. I note with some sadness that Drmies wrote here that "... unfortunately, NOTHERE is looming" (sad because what DrM says is pretty much infallibly right and I don't want to see us deter a good-faith new editor). Can we find some other way to let this user learn how to edit here without overwhelming others with unreasonable amounts of extra work? Might mentorship, or a daily limit on number and/or volume of edits, be made to work? Any suggestion welcome, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(e.c.) In the last few minutes, I've reverted two more edits [401], [402]. I'd suggest that Kinfo not continue editing while this discussion is in progress. They seem knowledgeable and delightful, but as the edit history and above comments make clear, Wikipedia is not the right fit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A tutorial with a human would help, and someone to e-chat and email with as I am deciding what to write.

Instead of just deleting my input, tell me what sources you have makes it have to be deleted or edited.

Everyone is being so nice to help me. Also, my vision is not good, so this is a lot of work. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying you're wanting Wikipedia to be YOUR Informational legacy is more symptoms that you want to WP:OWN the article. Same with requiring other editors to go through you to verify information. Saying you have contacted the subjects in question to verify information is also original research WP:OR and asking for their permission to have published information withheld also implies some conflict-of-interest.

Regarding on-screen credits, I've given you an example of how to validate an on-screen television credit at the talk page along with timestamp. But instead, you cited IMDb and Fandom Wikias, which are user-generated, or their derivatives. You've even stated the subject's own resume as sometimes incorrect. It is possible some entries on there may be wrong, but that's why Wikipedia relies first on non-resume / non-self-published material.

Regarding birthday, there is nothing that says he is objecting to having his birthday published. He has a prominent news article from Charlotte Observer that lists his age, and even his parents' names, and an online interview where he stated the month and day. And it was not prefaced or followed with a "please keep this private" message, so he does not object. If the subject does object, he needs to contact Wikipedia (or file an OTRS) or tweet on his social media about wanting to keep his birthdate private.

If certain published sources have incorrect information, you should provide evidence where information can be contradictory. Maybe another published article has it right?

Again, it might be better to create your own fansites for John and Walter the Cat where you have complete control over the information published, and you can include other snippets such as your personal correspondence with him. Fandom Wikia might be okay with that, but finding a free host that will keep your information around forever would be better. You can also archive your website pages on wayback. Then you don't have to deal with issues about other folks editing, verifying, or cleaning up your writing.

If you need some more live-action correspondence, perhaps some editors can recommend some of the live-action options such as IRC or discord? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Kinfo Pedia has gone silent the last four days; perhaps they understand the problems. If, however, this is not deemed actionable, and they're merely waiting for the smoke to clear so as to resume the same pattern of editing, I will open a follow-up report. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at Exmor

Persistent restoration of non essential product description. This had previously induced page protection, but my request for a renewed lock has been ignored. Asking for reversion, protection, and a check on socking--it's not unlikely that one editor is using multiple accounts solely in this cause. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I offer no opinion about the underlying content dispute, but the chance that several different editors came to the conclusion that such esoteric content should be restored is so close to zero to be indistinguishable from it, so a report at WP:SPI seems reasonable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think a ping to @Billinghurst: who protected the page back in November. The giant list of sensors was immediately restored when protection lapsed based on a new user who said 'it is useful'. The talk page is interesting to say the least. A larger discussion is warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks from 1995hoo

For background, the other day, I made an edit to an article over which I now believe a small group of editors, including 1995hoo, have established a level of WP:OWNership. My edit included the Commonwealth English spelling of "criticised", an ENGVAR I expected to be in use. Almost immediately, 1995hoo reverted it. So far, nothing really of note. The revert reason was ENGVAR, and (long story short) once it came to my attention that there had been edit-warring at the article for ENGVAR, I started an RfC at WP:FOOTBALL on whether all the men's World Cup articles should have one ENGVAR so such warring doesn't happen in future.

Throughout, however, 1995hoo has insisted on characterising my edits, comments, and motivations as inherently malicious. This has strayed to the territory of repeatedly making personal attacks when initiating discussion of me, personally (not topics), with other users - and then acting nice when interacting with me.

• When canvassing their buddies to the RfC here, wrote A user started an RFC to force the use of British English in all its forms …
• …after having said, in reply to me, I don’t necessarily mean to say that you personally are actually focused on the "soccer versus football" argument …
• …which came as a result of me asking them about their original !vote at the RfC, which had similarly included the accusation the use of "soccer" versus "football," which is really what the question is about. As an aside, this also had combative language, like The World Cup does not belong to the Brits or to the Commonwealth and there is no reason whatsoever to demand that their variety of English apply, and so I feel 1995hoo has felt that the RfC was an attack, for them to be replying in such a way.

So far, this appears to be simply a case of, no matter the fact 1995hoo was there from the very beginning; had been the one to tell me of the past edit-warring; and had seen my thought process throughout, an incredible lack of AGF in thinking I was cynically intending to "force" upon him an ENGVAR that I had indeed never even mentioned.

It is against CIVIL to have directly mentioned me (among the other issues) when going canvassing, especially using my apparent intentions as a reason to !vote a certain way, which is certainly a form of attack (in that it is 1995hoo effectively telling certain users that they should be ideologically opposed to me). But 1995hoo did somewhat apologise for that when I made him aware of the CANVASS policy. This is to say, I don't think 1995hoo is a 'bad' user, just goes incredibly all-in – taking it far too far – when encountering something he doesn't like.

Because that exhibit of deciding to start negative discourse about me, as a user, has now reappeared in a thread that they began, with the explicit intention of being rude about me. Their further responses going further.

I maintain that 1995hoo's characterisation of me as being rude etc. is at best a misunderstanding, which is what I will assume even though (as it regards this topic) they have been along since the start. I have not assumed bad faith of them, merely asked why they did so of me (based on their explicit messages to other users), after having thanked them for their willingness to discuss both at the 2026 WC article and the RfC. Nor have I exhibited ownership, merely tried to keep an RfC on-topic, something I did with users who !voted in different ways, so there can be no accusations of bias in enforcement.

In any case, even if I was as "arrogant" as 1995hoo seems to believe (or, at least, wants to go around telling people), that is no reason to repeatedly start and contribute to discussions on the subject of "being a dick about Kingsif". This is repeated, targeted, incredibly uncivil behaviour. I would venture it is made worse that they have done it all in tangential spaces, while acting sweet 'to my face'; i.e. they know the behaviour is wrong. Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Last point first. I have never, not once, used the word "dick" in reference to kingsif, and I have no intention of ever doing so. I don't use that sort of language on Wikipedia unless I am editing an article in which that sort of thing appears in a quotation. With regard to the rest of the discussion, I perceive kingsif's conduct as being exceptionally rude and smacking of WP:OWN (especially in terms of attempting to dictate to people how they can or cannot comment on issues). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement quoted above that the World Cup does not belong to the Brits or to the Commonwealth and that there is no basis for insisting that their variation of English must apply—it is an entirely accurate, factual statement, but it happens to disagree with user kingsif's position. I take note that kingsif has repeatedly assumed bad faith as to users who disagree with the idea that British spellings should apply to the World Cup article—from the very beginning of the edits cited above, kingsif's responses accused other users of "not being open to discussion," being guilty of "enormous bad faith," and "think(ing) they OWN the content." When kingsif immediately accused me of "enormous bad faith" right from the beginning here [403], I think my responding more or less in kind was justified.

I have acknowledged that I was unaware of the canvassing policy and that I acted wrongly there. I've never had reason to see that before.

Regarding my discussion with user GoodDay, if you look at GoodDay's edit summaries in the RFC in question [404], you'll see GoodDay had become fed up with being bossed around: "Not being allowed to participate freely in RFC, by RFC creator. Therefore walking away." I left a message on GoodDay's talk page to express support. Yes, it mentioned kingsif, and yes, it made negative comments about his handling of the situation—but the discussion would not have made any sense if I hadn't mentioned kingsif.

How about this: I propose I will have no further involvement with your RFC and that I will just walk away from editing any World Cup articles at all, at which point presumably we should have no further dealings with each other. If you want, I'll delete my comments from the RFC as well (but in order to keep the logical structure of the discussion, I propose to substitute the text "(This comment withdrawn by the user)" because otherwise the page structure would get messed up with indented replies not appearing to respond to anything). 1995hoo (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me add one further comment to my reply above. I looked back at the Talk: 2026 FIFA World Cup discussion and I note that after I said I thought it was inappropriate of kingsif to accuse another user of bad faith simply because the other user disagreed with him (comment of 13:37 on December 17), kingsif then turned around and accused me of bad faith (comment of 15:55 the same day). I simply want to be clear on the record that my response to kingsif has been predicated on what I perceived as open hostility on kingsif's part from the beginning. 1995hoo (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@1995hoo: I haven't looked back at the discussion at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup, and I would be happy for you to bring diffs. What I recall is that I proposed discussion, nothing more, and at least three users replied in a sort of tandem to shut down the idea of discussion even as I suggested why. I believe I wrote that seeing this refusal to consider discussion gave me the impression of a bad faith approach. This is all to say, I still don't have an issue with you as an editor and I always want input from every angle - I also think I said that, that I invited your reasoning, including that American spellings aren't exactly confusing - but, to the point, disruption and disrespect is never okay.
To respond to some of your main reply here: I do not want you to remove your comments from the RfC or to disengage with a subject you are interested in. I believe that you are very invested in preserving American English, though, and saw my attempt at discussion as an attack, and approached me with that in mind - reading more maliciousness into my comments than is in the actual words, for example - and forming an image of me that you say you thought was hostile from the start. Well, I wasn't trying to be, and I haven't mentioned your very first (hostile? maybe) edit reason (I don't think it is part of the later pattern that needs addressing). Now, let's be honest, I don't mind what you think of me and I would expect you to have the same view — if we can still work together civilly. But going around to multiple other pages and smearing me? That is an unacceptable behavioural issue.
I do appreciate you reaching out to another user who may be feeling annoyed about their involvement in the RfC, we should all be supportive, although their (GoodDay) edit reason that you quote is a wildly misleading exaggeration, too; nobody stopped them participating freely, I asked them to be clearer in their explanation exactly to help their participation in the survey, and (separately) hatted their off-topic discussion after they said they didn’t want to continue because they still didn't understand. (I assume it is this that you are saying is me being rude and smacks of OWN? Literally encouraging them and then just closing a discussion they ended? Well, okay. You also can't have seen my actual !vote if you say they and I disagree, but clearly what I actually think vs what the image of me you have constructed thinks doesn't matter to you.) And, back to the point, I really think you could have been supportive to them without making a thread to be a dick (yes, my words, I should have noted the quote marks there were giving a sense, not directly quoting) about me. And that was your intention, not a side effect of the discussion, since you named the thread after me and opened it by saying you didn't want to get into the RfC but would comment on me as a user. Your further replies were even more specific. That is unnecessary. And that is what this ANI is opened for. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me also add (@1995hoo: to keep in the loop though this isn't a reply), for those coming to look over the case and maybe wondering what I might expect, that I imagine the most favourable outcome here would be some kind of IBAN that 1. does not cover the shared area of interest (football), as I think we both value each others' article space contributions there, and 2. puts 1995hoo on a final warning regarding further similar uncivil thread-making/ private chats to be a dick about users. I don't want to see them suffer, but, as I understand it, such behaviour is really the opposite of the mindset of a collaborative Wikipedia, and someone thinking it is appropriate to stoke division because of an apparent personal issue needs to learn that is not the case. And if not learn, at least know they can't do it again (like with the canvassing). Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is an "IBAN"? 1995hoo (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I need to sign off for the night, so if anyone leaves a message that would seem to merit my response and I don't respond, it's simply because I will not see it until Friday morning Eastern Time. 1995hoo (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:IBAN. Ravenswing 02:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unable to use VE

Hello, I am unable to to use visual editor for creating or editing article, i have done the preference setting and all what i know to make it work but its not working out and the source editor is hard for me.

Kindly help me out please QDJ22 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@QDJ22: not really the best place for this question (I'd recommend somewhere like WP:VPT), but while you're here — does this link open the visual editor on WP:SANDBOX? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 02:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

ohh i dont know, its still the same thing on the sandbox QDJ22 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unable to use VE

 – — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Category added in error

Could an admin please delete the Category:Fellows of Royal Society of Edinburgh and the talk page as Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh already exists. Apologies for creating this mess. --Bduke (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Bduke (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Medellin fa and User:NoToFakeEdit - incivil behavior against each other

So, two users, Medellin fa (talk · contribs) and NoToFakeEdit (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on Jawid Safi, but it seems to be something bigger than what would go on WP:ANEW. NoToFakeEdit has been calling out Medellin fa about seemingly attempting to create a fake biography about Jawid Safi on sswiki. (Also, I've been called a sock of NoToFakeEdit by Medellin fa.) I'm not sure what to do here, but I know it may not be solved with a simple AIV report. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

this user Medellin fa make wiki for himself on anothers person name! (with photoshop photos + please chek the photos), Jawid Safi And Javad Safaee Is 2 Different Person! The Fake Person Javad Safaee Try To Make A Wikipedia For Himself With Another Name, The Photo Of Article Is Photoshop And Fake >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi AND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi)

Javad Safaee Is A Fake Musician With Fake Sources BUT Jawid Safi Is A Real cricketer, Javad Safaee Try To Make Many Wikis In Another Wikis But Cant: https://ss.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javad_Safaee

And now he try to make a wiki for himself under another person name, just chek the photoshoped photos...

Their team also try to make wiki for another persons too, Please chek the history of this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi NoToFakeEdit (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

NoToFakeEdit keeps adding this text on people’s talk pages. Airtransat236 (talk | contribs) 00:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Anybody not hear me! you are right but please chek the history of pages, they are 2 different persons... you delete another person at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi)

The javad safaee is at their team (they make wikipedia under another persons name) NoToFakeEdit (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If you chek the history of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawid_Safi he is just a cricketer, but on 15 december their team hijacked this page and they add some of names and biographies little by little! (just in same date of that page you remove before) NoToFakeEdit (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You revert the Jawid Safi article to MehrabNabi edit version (Just chek the username who edit that version)!!!!!! Who is another fake person and you just deleted his article 30 minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi)

Please chek the article dates! on 15 december they try to hijack this article and change the name of Jawad Safi to javad safaee:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&action=history&offset=20221210013727%7C1126568275

The true version is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&oldid=979188247 NoToFakeEdit (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrator's note: I've p-blocked Medellin fa from Jawid Safi for 24 hours, as they continued edit warring after the warning. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

NoToFakeEdit: please stop spamming other editor's talk pages with that message. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

They are meddelin team (as their username), if you search medellin and javad safaee in youtube, you can find they are SAME, this fake news website is for them: https://forbes.zone/2021/01/afghan-iranian-musician-and-athlete-left-the-cricket-team/

and they write these news for wikipedia articles as sources, you can chek the WHOIS of this website.

Jawid safi is just and only Jawid safi, he dont have another nickname like javad safaee, please edit the article at this true version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&oldid=979188247 NoToFakeEdit (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a hoax. Forbes.zone, one of the sources used, didn't exist as a domain when the article was supposedly published. Most of the articles on that site are direct copies of other articles elsewhere except for the obvious promotional pieces. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks god, finally The truth was revealed, god bless... NoToFakeEdit (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

also special thanks to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Airtransat236 talk for revert that article to the true version. NoToFakeEdit (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• A note on notability I'm unconvinced that Jawid Safi the cricketer is actually notable, certainly looking at his CricInfo profile. The chap in the hijacked version is clearly not, that's simple vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know about the cricketer, but you are right about the other, similarly named person – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javad Safaei from a couple of months ago is about him, and closed as "delete" in spite of much socking. The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aryankhodakarami. Many of the accounts listed in the archives of that SPI are globally locked because of cross-wiki disruption/spamming. NoToFakeEdit mentioned Mehrab Hossain (cricketer, born 1991) above; that's another article that was hijacked by this group. It was moved to another title, some of the biographical data was changed, and this manipulated photo was added – that's a photo of a completely unrelated cricketer (published in Times of India) with the face photoshopped in. I'm pretty sure there are still some hijacked articles. I've just restored Alireza Naghizadeh which was hijacked back in June, and I think Mousa Esmaeilpour is another one since it has one of those fake forbes.zone sources, but it might take a little time to work out what in that article is actually supported by reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Abbasulu is a suspected paid editor but they will not engage

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

This is a prolific editor creating substantial quantities of arbitrary quality articles in the Indian film industry. Many of their main space articles have been returned to draft, sent to AfD, and are severely lacking in verified notability. I have become concerned that this may be an editor paid to create these articles so have left four warnings regarding WP:PAID, none of which have been replied to (all have been ignored), nor has any obvious attempt been made by this editor to engage with anyone.

While it may be that they are, somehow, missing seeing what is on their talk page, it seems to me that an attempt by an administrator to engage with them may bear fruit.

If not UPE, that is great. However, their articles lack the basics Wikipedia needs in order for them to remain pubished. It may be a case of WP:CIR. Encouragement to understand our needs regarding articles would be useful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

They have replied to other talk page comments, so I don't think they're missing what's on their talk page. Why do you suspect them of Paid Editing? It looks like it could just be fan editing to me? Jahaza (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The challenge with suspecting paid editing is that it is often a gut feel, and has similarities to fan editing. They are highly topic focussed, and have not responded to challenges. Their behaviour of moving articles to main space, of not responding to deletion discussions, of not taking notice when articles are draftified is, at best unusual. I do not have any of the tools that others use to detect this, so I am only able to ask the direct question. I accept a clear answer. Were they to say "I receive no payment for my edits (broadly construed)" then that is the end of the question for me. The lack of any such response feeds the initial gut feel. I acknowledge that a gut feel may be incorrect, but it is sufficient for a challenge to be issued.

Let us assume, then, that are not paid. They have not engaged with any draftification, not any AfD, though in the case of one AfD they created an alternative spelling of the article, suggesting that they noticed it. They continue to plough the furrow without deviation despite presumable discouragement. The articles are highly likely to fail at AfD, and nominating them and subsequent discussions are a community time sink.

Either of these things, taken separately, are sufficient to ask for an admin to have a pleasant chat with them and point them onto the paved road instead of just watching them drive down the grass verge dodging bushes. It may require a patrol car with flashing lights to get their attention. I have hopes that they will create many useful articles that meet our standards. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have posted a denial here[405] before this ANI was opened, if I'm reading the time stamps correctly. Jahaza (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I failed to see that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, it was deeply embedded, and not in a logical place. Thank you for your diligence, it is appreciated. From my perspective they have answered that question and are not paid. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the example of them recreating an article at a new title after a deletion discussion? Paid or not, that would be disruptive. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit compare Draft:List of Kannada songs recorded by P. B. Srinivas and List of Kannada songs recorded by P. B. Sreenivas. The former was created in main space after the AfD for the latter started (now moved to Draft). Note the subtle difference in spelling 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not paid for any one of those articles I created. Most of those musicians are already deceased. I'm a huge fan of their music. Abbasulu (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Pktlaurence

Pktlaurence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been engaged in frequent edit-warring behavior this week that has involved both page moves without acknowledgement of ongoing discussions and the insertion of both inaccurate and MOS-breaking article edits. They have been blocked for their improper page moving–something this editor still frequently does despite not seeking discussion (roughly 20 article moves this year alone). They have also been blocked three times for edit-warring, most recently for a month on 15 November. Since the expiration of this most recent block, the editor has resumed their edit-warring behavior. They were reported for edit-warring for their page moves by JayBeeEll, resulting in an uncivil response and no acknowledgement of their incorrect behavior. The editor also exhibits behavior that raises WP:CIR concerns beyond persisting in actions that have gotten them blocked in the past. A good example of this is their ignorance of talk page discussion followed by repeated insertion of incorrect and BLP-breaking material on 2022 German coup d'état plot ([406], [407], [408]). Even when the problems with their edits are explained, Pktlaurence just doesn't get it. While they seem to be acting in good faith, this editor has not stopped edit-warring and page moving over objections. Requesting something to at least stop further page moves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The previous dispute has already been settled as you can check out. Now you've did your explanation and I'm fine with it, and you've already reverted it to the stable version which I didn't oppose, I didn't see any point for you to raise any further trouble, and what I wanted to do is to improve the article by engaging in discussions. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been warned on your talk page alone seven times for edit-warring, yet continue to push that limit even within a week of your most recent block expiring. You were blocked for page moving, yet move pages without discussion. You don't learn from other editors trying to stop your disruptiveness, then curse them out when they follow-through on reporting your behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Pktlaurence is very much a Dunning-Kruger editor at the moment, but hopefuly not irredeemably so. I ran across them at Principality of Wales where they tried to introduce their misconceived and anachronistic view on an aspect of medieval Welsh history into an Infobox. Not an issue in itself, but what was an isssue was WP:IDHT edit warring to get it in. In isolation, agin, not much of an issue in itself but what I did notice was a whole bunch of warnings on their talk page making very similar points on other articles. They just need to get a warning that they'll take notice of. DeCausa (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Pbritti for opening this. I am extremely annoyed about Pktlaurence's behavior. Consider the recent history of Heinrich_Ruzzo,_Prince_Reuss_of_Plauen. I moved this page in accordance with a (brief, but very reasonable) talk-page discussion. The next day, Pktlaurence moved it without discussion or explanation, ignoring both my move and the discussion that led to it. This immediately followed their move-warring over Heinrich Reuss/Heinrich_XIII_Prinz_Reuss. Given that they had offered no explanation at all, I returned it to the title that was consistent with the talk-page discussion (which also has the virtue of (1) being the name of the subject of the biography, and (2) not containing a factual error). Pktlaurence's subsequent explanation for their move is, frankly, utter bullshit, not any better than if they'd just told me to fuck off [409] [410]. Notice in particular that they believe "AGF" means their edits shouldn't be reverted (but do they bother to acknowledge or apologize for reverting others?), and that they are entitled to 3RR. And of course they accompany this by re-reverting (so that they have now moved the page, twice, while completely ignoring the clear problems with it, including the discussion that led to the move in the first place). This all follows extremely closely on their last edit-warring block, indicating that they have learned nothing. I looked over a bunch of their other recent edits and cannot find anything of value (they mostly have been obsessively moving things for consistency that shouldn't be consistent and shortening section headings for who the fuck knows what reason, but certainly nothing to do with WP policies or guidelines). Under the circumstances, I feel that they should be indefinitely blocked until they can demonstrate that they understand and will abide by the edit-warring policies and exhibit a baseline level of respect for the efforts of other editors. (DeCausa, with respect, apparently a one-month block for edit warring was not sufficient warning for them to take notice.) --JBL (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

While this discussion has been open they've taken up edit-warring at Ship prefix, see [411]. --JBL (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing at Yorkshire Sculpture Park

Gemma at Yorkshire Sculpture Park (talk · contribs) is very clearly an employee of Yorkshire Sculpture Park. The original user name was simply "Yorkshire Sculpture Park" and was recently renamed. This user has repeatedly pushed a non-compliant spammy clear-COI edit onto the article and has ignored any warnings - just revert, revert, revert. Now after a final warning from me, a new user Diana Beaumont (talk · contribs) has popped up and reinstated the very same edit. I'm not going to revert it as I don't want to go 3RR, but it's very clear that a) there is COI/paid-editing and b) very likely some sock puppetry as google will show you that "Diana Beaumont" is a name closely associated with the subject of the article. This sort of thing is really bad for Wikipedia and needs to be stopped. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Once sorted it will also need a {{revdel-copyvio}} as there is content that has been blatantly copy/pasted from other places such as here. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

copyvio-revdel now posted in article. Thanks @Girth Summit for your speedy help on this. Keep the faith! 10mmsocket (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I keep meaning to visit the Yorkshire Sculpture Park - it's supposed to be a great place to visit, our art teacher takes groups of kids every year but I've never been able to wangle my way onto one of them. I'm sure that our article about it could be much expanded and improved, but that isn't the way to go about it. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do it, the place is amazing. I travel frequently between Somerset and the North East. When I drive I make a point of stopping in - especially as it's so close to the motorway. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Rev-deletion  Done. And a +1 for visiting YSP, it's a great place. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it's a great place just makes such spamming even sadder. Why spam when the Wikipedia article makes it clear that it's a great place in the opinion of neutral sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

If I was just slightly more spiteful and slightly more interested in the topic.... Imagine a spite GA, nay, a spite FA! For now that's only in my wikipediholic dreams... ^[Humour] casualdejekyll 00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be a great idea at most times, but I suppose now (in historically Christian countries) is the season to try and avoid being spiteful. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)