Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139

User:BestOkieHistory

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.

---

• BestOkieHistory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Okiehistory is a user with an apparent conflict of interest with Wade Burleson, who was partially blocked on 23 July 2021.
• BestOkieHistory signed up on 9 May 2021 with the sole purpose of patrolling Okiehistory's contributions and later report Okiehistory (this report is a spin off of Okiehistory SPI.
• The activity and BestOkieHistory's username choice makes it clear that badgering Okiehistory is the sole purpose of this account. This sounds like a WP:NOTHERE issue.
• BestOkieHistory was clearly not a new user when they started editing, and this not a valid purpose for a privacy alt. Regardless of who the sockmaster is, this looks like WP:ILLEGIT socking. MarioGom (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @MarioGom, I've blocked under NOTHERE. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk page edits by 24.38.185.65

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 at least January 2021, IP user 24.38.185.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been using talk pages as a soapbox, complaining that the article subjects are not "really" the gender that matches their gender identity. On September 9, 2023, the IP user did so again on Talk:Amy Schneider. I gave a warning on that page and on the IP's user talk page. The user responded with vitriol that included more misgendering of the subject and removed a "final warning" of WP:BLP violation from User:Innisfree987. Please block the user to stop the misgendering and editor attacks, and please provide guidance on how to appropriately remove the WP:BLP-violating content from talk pages. Thank you. --LinkTiger (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the comments on the talkpage and made a req to protect the talkpage at WP:RFPP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support this block request, and would underscore that this disruption follows on related issues that have gone on for years now, previously resulting in blocks in 2021 and 2022. Unfortunately, this IP editor has also threatened to evade a block, saying in response to a warning, "FYI, changing IP addresses is not a problem for me.” Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it seems to have been a problem for them during the last years, and block evasion can be simply reverted. I found their contributions via WP:RFPP and blocked them for two years with talk page access disabled to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia as a discussion forum. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for your help @ToBeFree, much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2023 (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.

Editor making malicious adjustments to page, possibly as sock puppet or changes for hire

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 appears an individual from India with no editing history correlating to the page in question was either used as a sock puppet or edit for hire to make malicious and false adjustments to a personal page through three revisions.

No edits had been made to this page since 2020, with the last one being:

The first malicious edit was made by User:43.229.88.122 on July 6, 2023: with a minor edit made on the same day:

Note if you look at the IP of this editor, it both maps to India and has a history of editing Indian pages. The history is clear:

It makes absolutely no sense for this individual to make such edits as they did to the page in question. The only logical conclusion is this individual was asked to or paid to make these edits by a 3rd party to a page it had absolutely no connection or relation to in any capacity.

Another edit was made on August 31, 2023, just a little over a week ago. More changes with obvious malicious intent.

Note this "new" account User:103.42.196.70 has only this one edit under it, and the IP traces to the exact same provider in India as the previous 43.229.88.122 address.

I request the core page () is reverted to its January 30, 2020 state () and the accounts in question are investigated for violating Wikipedia TOS. It would also be very interesting to find out who was really behind these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requnix (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

• It's a BLP with very few page watchers, which has allowed BLP violations to slip in undetected. As such, I've added PC protection for a spell to help prevent further incidences. There were only two IPs making the edits, nearly two months apart, so I don't think anything further is needed at this time (except perhaps a check whether WP:N is met; I haven't looked to deeply but I have my doubts).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Ponyo! Requnix (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2023 (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.

SealedCargo

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.

---

SealedCargo (talk · contribs · count) is another editor who doesn't understand why we need to add sources and use good edit summaries or talk page comments where necessary, and has been previously blocked for this, when they got angry and snippy and called the challenging editor a racist. I notice despite the blocks, they're still not adding sources and putting in unverifiable original research, so can anyone have a word before an indefinite block becomes necessary? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Might also be a legal threat here: [1]. Ravenswing 13:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Judging by their tenuous familiarity with English, and their insistence on labelling every opinion that isn't theirs racist, I wouldn't jump to "take this to a higher court" being a threat of legal action, they could just as easily have meant taking the issue to a noticeboard. I'd wait to see if they make a more credible threat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• After being warned several times and previously blocked for adding trivial minutiae to various articles and refusing (not just failing but refusing) to provide sources, SealedCargo is now blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 14 September 2023 (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.

Undisclosed paid editor

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

---

People for all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continued to create promotional drafts on non-notable companies and people despite multiple warnings and has not disclosed their status as a paid editor.--24.211.70.219 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. They have made several edits after a final warning, and recieved at least one additional warning after the final warning, but have not addressed the accusations of paid editing anywhere. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That said, I find it unlikely they are actually being paid to edit. I do think it is highly likely though, that they have a non-financial conflict of interest and are editing inappropriately. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 13 September 2023 (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:TheAlienMan2002

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:TheAlienMan2002 has, IMHO, been way, WAY, WAY too heavy-handed on the Yardley Hastings article. And I'm sorry to say, his behaviour has peed me off considerably.

As 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:F550:7D61:A1C9:B6C8, I edited this article to make clear that Yardley Hastings was in the West Northamptonshire unitary authority area of Northamptonshire, England. And this is quite true: Yardley Hastings was in the South Northamptonshire local government district until 1 April 2021, when South Northamptonshire was merged with Daventry District and the Borough of Northampton to form West Northamptonshire (and East Northamptonshire was merged with the boroughs of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough to form North Northamptonshire, which is also a unitary authority area). And indeed, just two days after this reorganisation, User:Eopsid edited the article's infobox accordingly, and did the same in the articles for most other settlements in Northamptonshire.

At various addresses in my range over the last month or so, I have edited quite a few articles on settlements in Northamptonshire to clarify whether they are in West Northamptonshire or in North Northamptonshire, and to clarify that these two areas are unitary authority areas (like Bath and North East Somerset, Blackburn with Darwen, Central Bedfordshire, Medway, North East Lincolnshire, Thurrock, etc. etc.). Up to now I have not had such edits reverted, nor have I been asked to provide a source of any kind. So one can imagine my surprise when User:TheAlienMan2002 reverted my edit on the Yardley Hastings article, with the summary, "If this is true, please provide a reliable source for it. Otherwise, please don't add this into the article."

Did he not believe - indeed, does he not believe - that Yardley Hastings is in West Northamptonshire, an area which has existed for nearly two-and-a-half years now (as has North Northamptonshire)?

Anyway, as well as being surprised, I was annoyed - so I wasted no time in restoring my edit. While I admit to being OTT at the start of my summary, which was purely my annoyance talking ("Jeepers H Crackers, are you stuck in the 2010s or something?!"), I did point out in this summary what district Yardley Hastings had been in previously, when and exactly how West Northamptonshire came into being, and that when this happened the infobox had been updated accordingly.

I also left a message on User:TheAlienMan2002's talk page (again, OTT in going so far as to warn him for disruptive editing - but I genuinely was that annoyed), suggesting to him that he look at the articles for all the other settlements in Northamptonshire. I said that these articles said that the settlement was in West Northamptonshire or in North Northamptonshire, with no sources provided - and I said that the reason why no sources were provided was because there was no obvious need for them. (Well there isn't, is there? If there was, then surely there would be "citation needed" tags all over the shop - not just as regards articles on Northamptonshire settlements, but as regards articles on settlements in every county of Great Britain.)

His response? Simply to revert my edit on the Yardley Hastings article again, and say, "Again, if this is a true statement, please provide a citation for it. Otherwise, dont [sic] make edits out of your head. You always need a source for something and everything on Wikipedia."

Now, that really angried up my blood. Such words gave me the pretty overwhelming impression that he did not look at my summary for my restoration of my edit, that he did not look at the infobox, that he did not pay attention to the message I left on his talk page, and that he did not look at the articles for all the other Northamptonshire settlements as I suggested. (This could be completely the wrong impression, I'm more than happy to admit, although that's rather beside the point.)

As far as I'm concerned, he has been way too heavy-handed, way too autocratic - and, dare I say it, a touch on the ignorant side as well.

I do respect the rules that I know of, let me say, and I most certainly would provide a source if there was a clear and obvious need for one - like for the date someone was born, or for the length of a road or a river, or for the population of a particular inhabited place. But... since when has it been the rule that a source is always needed for every single little thing? Is there a clear and obvious need for a source regarding the Earth revolving around the Sun, or for a source regarding the square root of 4 being 2? And as regards settlements in Great Britain, is there a clear and obvious need for a source regarding Darwen being in Blackburn with Darwen, or for a source regarding North East Derbyshire being part of Derbyshire, or for a source regarding Inverclyde being in Scotland, when it's all prominently displayed in the infoboxes (by means of both text and maps), when the articles have been added to the appropriate categories (indeed, the Yardley Hastings article is in Category:West Northamptonshire District), and when there are the appropriate external links? (Again, if there was a clear and obvious need, then surely there would be "citation needed" tags everywhere.)

IMHO, User:TheAlienMan2002 needs a good talking-to here. And I would also like my edit to the Yardley Hastings article to be restored again, source or no source. (I'm not going to restore it myself this time, because I'm quite familiar with the concept of edit warring and I do not wish to get involved in such wars.)

Cheers, 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Before I respond with your rant, I'd like to say that the edits that you have made on the article were not cited. Failure to appropriately attribute your references constitutes a flagrant violation of the established protocols that govern conduct on Wikipedia. As an active participant in this online compendium of knowledge, it's incumbent upon you to familiarize yourself with the prescribed code of conduct, which unequivocally mandates the incorporation of citations when modifying webpages, and such.

It's noteworthy you have abstained from extending the courtesy of communicating to me the rationale underlying your actions, a gesture which would have expedited our mutual comprehension of the matter at hand.

In essence, you should endeavor to augment an article by incorporating additional individuals into its narrative, it's imperative that you substantiate such edits through the deployment of verifiable sources.

Absent this crucial validation, the inclusion cannot be deemed as possessing the requisite legitimacy

I would interpret such an advisement as a personal affront, implicitly insinuating that the onus of errant communication rests solely with me, despite a preponderance of evidence suggesting that you have been he perpetrator of such transgressions throughout the entirety of our interaction.

I have not merely glanced at, but rather scrutinized, your summative elucidation, initially deeming it to possess a veneer of authenticity.

However, any semblance of legitimacy swiftly evaporated upon my realization that you failed to substantiate your assertions through the employment of credible resources. Conversely, if my contentions are substantiated as accurate, it would be incumbent upon you to accord greater diligence to the pre-established regulations that govern conduct within this platform. I would strongly advise the initiation of a formula user account, as your current mode of participating via an unshielded IP address leaves you vulnerable to public scrutiny within Wikipedia.

We will see what an administrator will decide based on the result here, but if they choose you, its definitely biased.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, Verifiability is a core content policy and it says quite clearly that material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. In other words, if TheAlienMan2002 or any other editor reverts any edit you make and asks for a reference (citation), then the onus is on you to provide an inline reference. Following that policy is mandatory, so please do so going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IP user: WP:WHYCITE indicates that, "sources are needed for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." When @TheAlienMan2002 reverted your edit and asked for a source, the material became challenged, and a source became needed.

@TheAlienMan2002 The excessive verbiage in your response comes across as snarky. Please be civil. By the way - the admonition to be civil applies to both of you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn Then how come I've made similar, sourceless edits to the articles for many other settlements in Northamptonshire and other counties, and no-one has challenged these?

And may I say once again, West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire have both existed for nearly two-and-a-half years. Surely that's long enough now that people shouldn't have to challenge this? (If someone challenged Epping being in Epping Forest District, or Gravesend being in Gravesham, or Slough being in the Borough of Slough, when all three of these districts have existed for nearly fifty years, I honestly would despair greatly.) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why. If any of those were reverted then the exact same principle (that you would bear the onus of supplying a source) would apply. --173.70.129.146 (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@173.70.129.146 And let me say with my hand on my heart, if any of those were reverted I would be very, very angry indeed.

I would be very, very angry because I see absolutely no good reason for these to be challenged, source or no source. Challenging something that has clearly been the case for nearly half a century? Sorry but, IMHO, you might as well challenge everything in that case.

I saw, and indeed still see, no good reason for it to be challenged that Yardley Hastings is in West Northamptonshire. If one challenges that, then why not challenge Northampton, Daventry, Towcester etc. etc. being in West Northamptonshire too (and, for that matter, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough etc. etc. being in North Northamptonshire)? Why not remove the appropriate text from these articles, and demand sources? Just doing it on the Yardley Hastings article is singling out - and let me say, again with my hand on my heart, that I absolutely abhor the practice of singling out, not just here on Wikipedia but in the real world too. I firmly believe that if one thing or person is targeted for having something perceived to be bad (whether this something genuinely is bad or not), then everything/everyone else who has this something perceived to be bad should be targeted too, instead of being allowed to continue on as if there's nothing wrong with them at all (again, whether this genuinely is the case or not). 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me very quickly add: if something was challenged and there was a genuinely good reason for that something to be challenged, I most certainly would add a source then. But once again, as far as I'm concerned there was, and is, no genuinely good reason for it to be challenged that Yardley Hastings is in West Northamptonshire. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAlienMan2002 "It's noteworthy you have abstained from extending the courtesy of communicating to me the rationale underlying your actions, a gesture which would have expedited our mutual comprehension of the matter at hand."

Excuse me, but I did "extend to you the courtesy of communicating to you the rationale underlying my actions" (and may I say with all due respect, I fail to see any need to use such elaborate language here). I may not have communicated it to you on your talk page, but I *did* communicate it to you in the edit summary box when restoring these actions. I said, "Yardley Hastings was in the South Northamptonshire district until 1 April 2021, when this was merged with Daventry District and the Borough of Northampton to form the West Northamptonshire unitary authority area. And when this merger took place, the infobox was updated accordingly."

It says in the West Northamptonshire article, "West Northamptonshire was formed on 1 April 2021 through the merger of the three non-metropolitan districts of Daventry, Northampton, and South Northamptonshire; it absorbed the functions of these districts, plus those of the abolished Northamptonshire County Council." And guess what, there's no source attached to this - but there's also no "citation needed" tag, no challenge of any kind.

If you still believe my actions on the Yardley Hastings article were wrong, then you might as well believe that User:Eopsid's actions on the same article were wrong too, because he was the one who changed the infobox to say "Unitary authority: West Northamptonshire" and "Ceremonial county: Northamptonshire".

(There's another piece of advice for the future: do not single out one editor for a (rightly or wrongly) perceived bad action when other editors have done the same or similar actions on the same article.)

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to verify the information that is coming out of your head, and remember to be civil when doing edit summaries since you've called me different names. I'd like to remind you that if an editor asks you to provide a source when they do a revert then you're expected too, per the Validity Article On Wikipedia.

Anyone can say any information that themselves think of, and they'll always try and do it without sources. You should know as a Wikipedia user- excuse me, IP user, you have to use sources, because they're important! Really simple.

If you have any questions, go to my talk page, here isn't the best location to talk at. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAlienMan2002 "If you have any questions, go to my talk page, here isn't the best location to talk at." Too late for that now.

Perhaps you would care to explain why I have made similar, sourceless edits to the articles for so many other settlements in Northamptonshire and beyond, and not been challenged on any of these? And perhaps you would also care to explain why when User:Eopsid changed Yardley Hastings' infobox to say "Unitary authority: West Northamptonshire" and "Ceremonial county: Northamptonshire", that wasn't challenged either?

I'm not backing down here, you know. If it means me getting blocked, so be it. And if you're not going to back down either - even in the face of everything I've tried to explain to you - well, it'll be even sadder a state of affairs than it already is, but again so be it. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, you must back down if you have any desire to keep editing Wikipedia. Verifiability is a core content policy, and complying with it is mandatory and non-negotiable. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: do you understand that I absolutely abhor the practice of singling out, which is exactly what User:TheAlienMan2002 has done here?

He singled out the Yardley Hastings article for a perceived fault, without obviously bothering to look at the many other similar articles that have that same perceived fault. And he singled me out for putting this perceived fault in the Yardley Hastings article, without obviously bothering to notice that User:Eopsid did something pretty similar in the very same article two-and-a-half years ago and that was not challenged.

User:TheAlienMan2002 peed me off, he really did. Maybe if he had taken the time to go over my recent history, see that I'd put in this perceived fault in many other similar articles, and take this perceived fault out of those articles too, then I wouldn't be so peed off and I wouldn't have felt the need to take the matter here to ANI.

To answer your question, yes, I do understand that verifiability is a core content policy and must be complied with. But I'm afraid to say, I firmly disagree with what I believe to be the way in which User:TheAlienMan2002 has tried to enforce this policy: by singling out one article and one editor of that article, and by being heavy-handed and autocratic. And I'm also afraid to say, I am not backing down in this belief unless someone - anyone - can convince me otherwise. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fellow IP, there's nothing to be gained from this. You keep saying you abhor "singling out", as though someone asking for a citation on one edit without also asking for one on every single other edit is a malicious or unfair act. People see different edits at different times, and have different pages watched. One of your edits prompted someone to ask for a citation. That was not an affront to you. You were not singled out or targeted. I promise you, nobody cares enough about this to be targeting you.

This is, as you've been repeatedly told, how Wikipedia works. Either take some deep breaths of fresh air and realize that you're being mad online over nothing in a glorified comment section, not standing alone on a battlefield up against an unjust force... or get yourself banned for some inexplicable reason. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:786A:F6FB:1A49:8275 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to my belief that it was not the kind of edit that should have prompted anyone to ask for a citation - and I'm sticking to all my other beliefs too.

I'm now running out of strength to argue... so this will be my last and final reply. Once again, if the ultimate outcome of all this is that I'm blocked (and that User:TheAlienMan2002 gets off scot-free), so be it. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy exemption for editors who assert without convincing evidence that they are being "singled out". The policy applies to every single editor without exception. If you have persuasive evidence that you are being harassed, then present that evidence in a separate report. But insisting that editors comply with clearcut policy is not harassment, so don't bother putting forward that claim. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This conversation ends now. Another Wikipedia user put a source on the article, like i’ve asked you to do. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it really worth expending so many words over one easily-sourceable fact? User:Phil Bridger (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It took me five seconds to find a source on this, the user above beat me to publishing my edit of it. (His source was better as well) but I agree the users involved in this should have simply found a source instead of edit warring over one easily sourceable bit of information. Eopsid (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And that does not even begin to address the WP:TLDR issues displayed by both of these editors. Emulate Hemingway. Be concise. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now this will be my last and final reply and then that really is it.

I am happy that my edit to the Yardley Hastings article has been restored. But you know something, User:TheAlienMan2002? Absolutely nothing was stopping you from adding a source in the first place. Nothing at all.

In fact, you had three options when you saw what you saw. You shamelessly chose the one that was the most aggravating by far. The other two options you had were far, far less aggravating: adding a source yourself, or adding the "citation needed" tag.

Do not say to me, or to anyone, "It wasn't my responsibility to add a source, because I wasn't the one who added this piece of information in the first place" - that would be a pretty childish remark, and a rather cowardly one too. Also do not say to me or to anyone, "What good would adding the "citation needed" tag have done?", because I'll tell you exactly what good it would have done: the proverbial red mist would not have descended on me, I would have not felt singled out nor would I have felt that the Yardley Hastings article was being singled out (one last time, I'm sticking to these beliefs, and that's it), I would have willingly gone looking for a source and added it, and none of this mess would have happened.

So I'm saying all this is your fault, User:TheAlienMan2002? Yes, I am saying that, because it is all your fault. By shamelessly choosing the option of reverting my edit - and by not choosing your words in your edit summary particularly well - you made me angry. And you went on from there to make me angrier, to the point that I took the matter here to ANI (which clearly you are not happy about). Had you chosen the option of adding a source yourself, or the option of adding the "citation needed" tag, you would not have made me angry, and you, me, User:Cullen328, User:ONUnicorn and everyone else would not be here now.

It's all your fault, User:TheAlienMan2002. Yet another belief I am sticking to.

And one final belief before I go: you're still a rookie editor. You have made fewer than two hundred edits since you started out nearly two years ago - which, along with choosing the most aggravating option out of the three available to you, doesn't suggest to me anything else other than you're still a rookie. (You certainly wouldn't be a rookie if it was two thousand edits you have made, rather than just two hundred.) As far as I'm concerned, you still have a fair few things to learn - perhaps what's happened here (one last time, all your fault) will make you learn some of these things. You might not like learning them this way - but sadly, sometimes the hard way is the best way.

Now I'm off to delete all this from my Google history, and to pretend that none of this happened. If I'm blocked, so be it. And if this, ahem, discussion continues on and I am referred to in the second person (that is, "you"/"your"/"you're") despite no longer being around, so be it. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:DDAD:F27B:8E03:496F (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

TL; DR. Simplify your rigorous rant and I'll consider responding to you. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2023 (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.

Miafvmoa's talk page abuse while blocked

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.

---

Miafvmoa (talk · contribs), who has been blocked since September 8, has been making unexpected edits to their own talk page while blocked. This is not proper use of one's talk page for blocked users. In their edits, they turned their own talk page into a Wikipedia article. A blocked editor, if able to edit their talk page, should be used for filing unblock requests, not making experiments. Eyesnore 01:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(Update) From the user's contributions, it appears that the editor was copying and pasting wikicode from another page, probably one of the communities in Fandom. This behavior is unexpected coming from a blocked editor still able to edit their own talk page. Eyesnore 01:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've revoked TPA. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 September 2023 (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.

Inserting OR and threatening other editors

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.

---

JordiWild98 has repeatedly inserted original research into the article U.S. Agent based on their own analysis of the character's comic book appearances (diffs: 1, 2, 3). Several editors have reverted and tried to explain the problem, but JordiWild98 responded with this threatening message informing an IP editor that their "end will not be pretty". This specific IP address has never edited the article in question, but it's in the same range as an IP editor that reverted the OR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing troll response made by the user here. User has been indefinitely blocked for repeatedly failing to cite a reliable source with their edits, and for their threatening conduct (diffs: 1, 2) with their response to feedback. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that JordiWild98 has never edited any of the same pages as the IP he threatened, it looks likely that the user editing from that account was also then one editing from this IP account, which had edited in a very similar style (citing Marvel Comics material to the source comics) and had previous left a complaint on that other IP's talk page.

I should also note what appears to be a veiled threat: "So you better stop editing articles without any source, because you are so clumsy as to leave your IP out in the open on a public server." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2023 (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.

Lisa Nowak, featured 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.

---

Is it just me? I am alarmed by today's choice of featured article, the astronaut Lisa Nowak. She is famous for being an astronaut and pepper-spraying a love-rival. The crime is, viewed globally, a trivial one. A love-triangle assault such as happens daily in every country, something that shouldn't be held against a person for the rest of their life. It's a passing chapter. Were she not an astronaut, it would have been completely non-notable. I do not think it is fair to someone to drag their 16-year-past indiscretion up and plaster it all over the front of one of the world's highest-profile websites. This is a balance-question too; nearly half what a reader sees on our front page is about her pepper-spray incident, which is totally out of proportion to all the work she did as an astronaut. This just seems wrong. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an administrator issue; if you disagree with the Featured Article, please participate in the process that determines what articles are featured, WP:TFAR. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me tell when this featured article was discussed at WP:TFAR. All I can see is that the blurb was created on August 4. Can someone help me out here? Shells-shells (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We should ask Wehwalt. If process was not followed, that would certainly be an issue. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Taking off my admin hat, I would say that I don't think that it's trivial, as astronauts rarely commit serious crimes and are usually evaluated and trained to be well disciplined and make good decisions. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at WP:ERRORS to some degree. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's still there. Tbh, the inaction over at ERRORS is probably why it's coming here - and probably right so. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't just you, I also thought it a completely inappropriate candidate for the featured article. This is also an appropriate venue, where rapid action is required to fix an egregious mistake. I would have hoped some admins would recognise it as problematic and take action accordingly. WCM_email 10:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What action? Overwriting consensus? This is an imminent desysop. Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the egregious error here? 331dot (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The OP said it themseves, "Were she not an astronaut, it would have been completely non-notable". She was an astronaut, someone highly trained and (supposedly) vetted mentally, who shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view it should come off the front page right now. More than a third of the visible summary on this woman on the front page is about this minor but very negative incident. The presentation of it on the front page of Wikipedia is utterly UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Well said. WCM_email 10:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Pull or Amend This should be pulled, or the material about the felony removed from the blurb. I would do it myself right now except I'm going to be AFK for most of the rest of the day. There is no need to treat a BLP like this, it comes across as horribly mean-spirited and ... well, tabloidy. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've cut the material on the specific charges. Can we centralize discussion at WP:ERRORS and make sure everyone's working from the current version of the blurb? Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2023 (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:Hussain paramount: persistent spammer

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.

---

• Hussain paramount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has repeatedly added random content (here and here), or blatantly promotional content (here) to Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. In all cases, he has added one or more citations to books whose author is listed as "Specialist, Seo" with links to paramountbooks.com.pk. It seems apparent that this SEO specialist is attempting to drive traffic to the Paramount Books website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That was fast. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 14 September 2023 (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 Allbdlivetv TPA

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.

---

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

misuse of talk page while blocked. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:10, 14 September 2023 (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.

Starae2049

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.

---

Starae2049 (talk · contribs) used 2601:140:C100:2B7A:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) as Wikipedia:LOUTSOCK on Shaneka Henson to violate WP:3RR -Lemonaka‎ 17:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Certainly looks like either a LOUTSOCK or a meatpuppet. No matter how you slice it, they wouldn't have violated 3RR, since the edit warring is so slow. But it's very persistent, and that's not allowed either. I see Favonian has blocked Starae2049 as well as the /64 from the article for a month. (Starae is lucky I didn't get there first, as I was thinking 6 months, but then we all know Danes are nicer than Swedes.) Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 14 September 2023 (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.

Removal of valid wikilinks by Sandi0000

On List of Nat Geo Wild original programming article, Sandi0000 have removed all of the wikilinks that redirects to many TV programs that actually has an article for them, despite disagreement with other editors (You can see the talk page to know more). In addition, Sandi0000 displays WP:OWN behavior when confronted (see 1) 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 09:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Similar disruptive edits at List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC and List of programs broadcast by BBC America. Further warnings at their talk page deleted [2]. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what has already been mentioned, disruptive editing also occurred at List of Animal Planet original programming and List of National Geographic original programming. Thanks. Cheezknight (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sandi0000 this is section for you, see you responded to other sections above confused Indagate (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New issue, alongside the previous issues, of copyrighted descriptions. This user is not listening or able to understand what we have told them. Can an admin revdel please? [3]

@Sandi0000 Please stop and discuss. Indagate (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

discuss what? I gave info on every on-going Tv show how is that "copyright" Sandi0000 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sandi0000 discuss your editing which editors are finding disruptive. Why did you get the descriptions you added from? I googled the descriptions you added and they match official sites. You're still making the disputed edits, please stop while this is discussion is ongoing. Indagate (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandi0000 has now created a duplicate article under a different name at Draft:Nat Geo Aniaml Shows to continue editing. This has previously happened at least once. Cheezknight (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because they have continued to make exactly the same kinds of edits rather than discuss matters I've partially blocked them from the article and draft namespaces for a week. Hopefully this will get them talking, if it does and matters are successfully resolved before the week is up any admin should feel free to unblock at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I took out shows that weren't even from Nat Geo Wild they where from Animal Planet how are you understanding that? Sandi0000 (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"how are you NOT understanding that* Sandi0000 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandi0000 responded on my talk page, again in an irrelevant section, clearly not understanding the block. I have attempted to explain there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Other drafts they created as duplicate of the mainspace article are Draft:Nat Geo Wild Shows and Draft:List of Nat Geo Wild original programming, have redirected both. Thanks for blocking. Indagate (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

021120x

021120x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user was blocked for edit warring. But they have also made pa's in edit summaries [[4]] (not as well misrepresenting sources, this is in fact highly edited, in that it leaves out some context that alters what it says). Is bludgeoning the discussion (and telling about half a dozen experienced edds they are all wrong), launching somewhat dishonest RFC's [[5]] (not one had in fact objected to this), continues to misrepresent the source by cheery picking [[6]] [[7]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Your first two diffs are from 2005.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Mistake god knows that happened there. [[8]] [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I may be stating the obvious, but: The two broken diff links both lack their two final digits, compared to the correct ones. Likely broken while copying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Obvious? Not to normal people. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This user has been resorting to noticeboard escalations when it becomes clear that his arguments may be lacking. He has reversed positions in the middle of discussions,[[10]] cherry-picked information from sources while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same - and then deleting his comment and the response which disproved it[[11]][[12]]. And is now trying to close an ongoing RfC that has only just started and has not received any external comments. 021120x (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not nominate if to be closed, and no one (at the point you launched the RFC) had objected to the way you worded the text (In the RFC). My position reversed (as I said) after I checked what your source actually said (as opposed to what you claimed it said), Nor do I see any deletion of comments, I see a comment by you, and me altering my comment to include the right link. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Its worth noting that these are exactly the same behaviours that previously led to a week's block in a WP:BOOMERANG by GeneralNotability. We are seeing POV editing [13], which is not supported by the source and I found when checking the source the quotation was very much chery picked to give a misleading impression. There are personal attacks in edit summaries [14] and edit warring. The editor is simply bludgeoning the discussion. The block appeal shows no sign of comprehension that their conduct was in any way wrong and they blamed everyone else. There is very much a battlefield mentality at play here. If after a week's block for inappropriate behaviour, repeating the same nearly 3 years later and believing they are being wronged by everyone then perhaps a WP:CIR block could be considered, at the very least some mentoring may be appropriate. 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This [[15]] is what caused the mistake, deleting both a block and unblock rejection notice that is still active. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• It pains me to learn that not only has the user not stopped doing the exact behavior that was in question in the previous conflict linked above, but has escalated the behavior. Even despite repeated warnings from several editors in the past few months. User seemingly takes the warnings off their talk page when they happen, which is likely to be why this has not resulted in some 3RR or other action being already taken. User is clearly aware the behavior is inappropriate and yet continues to do it. I have little faith that the current page-specific block would bring an end to the disruptive behavior, or the battlefield behavior. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

[16] It seems that the editor has moved on to other articles but is continuing with the same behaviour of reverting without discussion to insert personal opinion as fact and misrepresenting sources to do so. This really does need nipping in the bud or else there will be tears before bedtime. WCM_email 10:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor and Occupation of Smyrna

Occupation of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP editor is adding unsourced POV to article. Eastern European sanctions area and I have reverted once, per BURDEN/ONUS. Don't want to edit war, but this should be looked at.

Diffs [17], [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)

• It's cute that the IP thinks that Putin is motivated by a failed invasion a hundred years ago. Ravenswing 13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Cute isn't exactly the qualification I would have used, but still. I do not really think this rises to anything worthy of an AN/I discussion. RPP seems more useful if this persists. I have the page on my watch list, and will revert that nonsense if I encounter it. (Non-administrator comment) Kleuske (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

    Enough of this sporadic CTOP disruption. Semied and logged. Courcelles (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

A number of UK IP-hopping vandals is insisting on inserting stuff about genital discharge into an article about cottage cheese (See page history). Issuing warnings is of no use. Likely the same person. User:Wwiki123456789 held the fort, but got an (undeserved) 3RR warning as a reward. Kleuske (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a range block is practical here; I've added a spoonful of semi-protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That helps. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The 3RR warning by YesI'mOnFire was not appropriate. Seriously deserves a WP:TROUT for that one. WCM_email 16:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User connected to commercial institution

User:AnbanSH seems to be connected to the for-profit college American College of Greece and contributes ad-like material to an already biased article. They have attempted to remove well-sourced parts of articles multiple times. 62.74.56.60 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I notified the user on their talk page. Keep in mind that notifying users with {{subst:ANI-notice}} is required. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ought to be banned for conflict of interest. UnironicEditor (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no "seems to be" about it: they admitted it back in March, although without details (they simply responded "yes" when asked if they were "connected" to the College). The boilerplate COI notice contains an advisory about paid editing but there's a better series about the requirement to disclose, I'll drop that on their page. They haven't edited in 2 weeks, though, there's really nothing else to do at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

IP continuing to breach WP:ENGVAR, despite warnings

116.86.53.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
116.86.7.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have reported another IP who I assume is the same editor before for this very reason.

This IP has made several edits (1, 2, 3, 4) breaching WP:ENGVAR, primarily making changes to English varieties in articles without discussion. They appear to be non-communicative and fail to use edit summaries, so while their intention may be good, disruptive editing is still disruptive.

The first IP I listed is the one I'm reporting now, and the second IP I listed has shown this exact editing pattern the year prior.

If this doesn't encourage the IP to tell their side of the story, I'm not sure what will. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• The IP hasn't edited for over 24 hours, so I think it's just a case of seeing if they continue, at which point a sanction may be merited. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistent breaking of NOR rule

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

User CriticKende continuously employs original research to edit articles, see History of Transylvania: 1, 2, 3. Previously on the article Vlachs: 1 which was admitted here and on Keszthely Culture article for example here which was admitted on the talk page here and on another dicussion seen here. I have opened a discussion on his talk page at User talk:CriticKende#Recent edits on History of Transylvania after which he briefly stopped editing and resumed today with this. His OR edits are sometimes masked under citations of sources but those sources do not, specifically or at all, say what the editor added, circumventing 3rd opinion mediation as seen here.

Edit: sorry, I missed the most recent example: 1, after the discussion on the user's talk page.Aristeus01 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I am insistent, is there someone who can provide some assistance ? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue (a dispute about what a source says/means), and it looks like the two of them are talking it out at the link provided above. As an aside, I think both of them could probably do with a (re-)read of WP:SYNTH. - jc37 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 thank you for taking the time to look into this!

My reasoning here is at it follows:

source 1 which speaks of the event (at page 97 not 98 as the editor stated) says:

"(Βλαχου γένος), according to Kekaumenos, originally Dacians and Bessis, who lived on the banks of the Danube and Sava, where "now" the Serbs live. They feigned allegiance to the Romans while constantly attacking and plundering them. Therefore, Trajan made war, their leader Decebal was killed, and then they were dispersed to Macedonia, Epirus and Hellas."

In the second source there is nothing at the page cited about the topic. Even more, the author cited, Gyóni Mátyás, wrote a passage in the book from the page 212 to page 219 where he talks about "Early Magyar-Byzantine Matrimonial relations", saying nothing about Vlachs.

The text added by the editor is:

"He (Kekaumenos) called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia."

Let me highlight the parts that are not in the sources:

"He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia."

So the editor:

1.added half of the text from his opinion

2.added some random sources after writing the statement without verifying the content

3.wrongfully gave the page number(s)

all in the hope to cover OR because no one is so determined to go trough hundred of pages of documents written in Hungarian to see if the source explicitly says what the editor added and determine if his editing is ok. And he is not wrong, considering the reactions so far, no offense.

As for WP:Synth, I would agree with this if the editing was done by collecting information from sources and patching it together in an edit, but the fact is the editor is simply stating his opinion and then dropping poor quality citations to pretend it is the actual source and "muddle the waters" on the OR accusation. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 - I understand that you are concerned about this situation, but based upon the talk page discussion, and what you have laid out above, this looks like it's a content dispute.

I note that so far no one else has commented in this thread. That could be because typically content disputes are not handled here. As noted at the top of this page, AN/I is for behavioual issues.

For a content dispute, you may want to try WP:3PO to get one or more third-party opinions. And there is also the NOR noticeboard, as well. If you do feel that this situation is disruptive, you could also try WP:DRN. But I would suggest the 3PO route first.

And for that matter, looking at the top of Talk:History of Transylvania, there appear to be several WikiProjects which you could reach out to as well.

I hope this helps - jc37 18:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Abusive homophobic edit summaries

A look at the edit summaries by Special:Contributions/Territory Woods suggests to me that he/she needs an indefinite block and most/all of their edits revdelled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

They were indeffed so this case can be closed. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that this new account is a sock account, and that his/her posts are attacks on editors he/she disagreed with using a different account. So please could checkuser be used on the account.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

THeyve been infected with TPA and email disabled. 2600:100F:B1A4:5889:D8A6:8071:D4E7:527B (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Non-checkuser comment) They appear to be the IP-hopper at Special:PageHistory/Achterdam and Special:PageHistory/Mail-order bride. I doubt a check would tie them back to any past sockmaster. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This account was the LTA known as Evlekis, who likes to jump into stuff. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well it was inevitable I'd be wrong about something eventually. /lh -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin just forgot to check the deleted contribs! A quick scan of those page histories says to me that this LTA was just stalking some recent changes. I should take this opportunity to observe that the content being persistently removed in the first of those articles appears to have a reference which sucks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Link for people interested: Evlekis (talk · contribs · logs · block log) NM 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved, but that historical user page was something else. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fanery Hoax

I think this article on Fanery may be a hoax. All the pictures and information come from a single user whose only edits are to this article. I can't find any other information online about Fanery and there aren't any corresponding articles in other languages. The article seems suspicious to me. Polyquest (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google on my part has likewise failed to turn up anything that supports the article. What hits did come in were from that page. Pending further investigation or input from someone with competence in the subject, I have tagged the article as a suspected hoax. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Last night I attended a live performance of the Depths of Wikipedia show, and Annie Rauwerda mentioned the Jar'Edo Wens hoax. I could barely restrain myself from yelling out "hey, I'm the one who deleted the bogus Jar'Edo Wens page after it was there for ten years!" It's embarrassing that the "Fanery" page, which also is blatant nonsense, has survived for even longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Polyquest Good catch on this. I am increasingly thinking that this is a likely hoe-axe as my southern friends would put it. I'm going to send it to AfD out of an abundance of caution. But it certainly fails WP:V right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! The pictures are interesting! Someone put a bit of effort into this one. Polyquest (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Aluminum traditional monetary objects!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily impossible. French coins were used in Madagascar before and after 1895, but the first aluminium coins were struck in 1907. I can remember the oddly lightweight aluminium French francs, which were still in circulation in the 1960s. See: fr:Aluminium#Histoire, last paragraph. (I've !voted delete on more solid grounds.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; it's an impressive fake, for what it's worth. Ravenswing 04:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the hoax tag, it's an obscure type of jewelry described in French sources, combined with unclear writing and some OR on the part of the author. Good work by some editors on the Afd. fiveby(zero) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Tech issue not solved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?damaging=likelybad%3Bverylikelybad&hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=50&days=7&urlversion=2

I tried clearing my search history and cache but it still does not work at all TheCarch (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This the wrong place to ask for technical help. This board is a place to report "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". You could try:

• Wikipedia:Teahouse (general area for questions)
• Wikipedia:Help desk (general area for questions)
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator (bug reports if you narrow this down to a specific bug)

I will say that link that you've posted works as expected for me. Good luck tracking down a solution to your issue, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 05:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheCarch This is a WP:VPT question, consider asking/moving this discussion there instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus 1RR violation

Moved to WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I remember supporting his 0rr appeal as he previously seemed to understand the disruption caused by his editwarring in the past. I ran into him again while commenting on some WP:RM's (namely [19]), noticed his contributions and saw what looks like a 1rr evasion to me. Marcelus was originally given a 0rr [20] which was later downgraded to a 1rr per an appeal at AN (see [21]). However, on Povilas_Plechavičius he engaged in reverting twice within a 24hr period - Marcelus first manually reverted Cukrakalnis' removal of content [22] here [23]. Cukrakalnis removed the Polish name again [24] while Marcelus reverted Cukrakalnis' edit within a 24hr period here [25]. That's 2 reverts in 24 hours. #prodraxis connect 04:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Your second Marcelus revert diff was the same as the first. I've fixed it for you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Also, @Prodraxis, this is a WP:CTOP sanction, so this would be better raised at WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Ok, got it. Btw thanks for fixing the diff. I will raise this at WP:AE #prodraxis connect 05:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Warfacts

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

Block for disruptive editing.

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

WP:NOTHERE, more or less all their edits have been reverted for being POV pushing (either them inserting their own opinion, removing or altering info). They only have 51 edits, and their talk page is already full of warnings, which they haven't even bothered to respond to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I'm not seeing where you notified Warfacts of this discussion? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and left the required notification for you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ops, sorry. Thanks for notifying them, completely forgot about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If User:Warfacts doesn't show up quickly to discuss their edits, a NOTHERE block is warranted. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Editor is a net negative and unwilling to communicate with the community. Moxy- 02:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Indeffed for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Moxy- 02:18, 16 September 2023 (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.

Deliberate factual error on Kachhwaha

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.

---

Illuminaati is adding factually incorrect content on Kachhwaha, even after repeated warnings. They have some Pov issue with Kachhi (caste), as there is attempt from his side to link a clan of Rajput caste with an Agricultural caste. Previously, they were doing same on Shakya (surname). Actually an article exist on Wikipedia about a caste group which they want to link with Rajputs. That article is Kushwaha.-Admantine123 (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be WP:SPA made for caste boosterism. Also, they have WP:CIR issue as not responding on talk page message.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2023 (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.

Personal attacks and other incivility by Fox931711

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.

---

Fox931711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Made several personal attacks against User:A type of cabinet on their talk page (recent replies to an old topic; first one appears to be offensive per Google Translate, second is prima facie offensive in English)
• Given an only warning about making personal attacks by User:A type of cabinet here
• Made this edit a few minutes later. The edit seems unconstructive (content removal), and (again per Google Translate) the edit summary appears to be extremely offensive.
• Made this edit a few minutes ago, where the edit summary contains an unambiguous personal attack against User:Fylindfotberserk.
• Started this topic on the same article's talk page, repeating the personal attack against User:Fylindfotberserk.

I have no idea about the alleged content issue on Haplogroup R1a (completely uninvolved, got here from RCP) but we can't have that kind of stuff on the talk pages and edit summaries. Given their other edits have mostly been reverted this seems like a fairly clear WP:NOTHERE situation.

Box of wolves (feed) 00:54, 17 September 2023 (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:Sidney Oldberg not here

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 think it's time to block User:Sidney Oldberg as WP:NOTHERE. They've been arguing for the inclusion of WP:OR climate denial at Talk:Climate_system#Why is my edit not published?. Insistence on following sourcing requirements has now led to personal attacks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1175680429. They've also been pestering me with unsolicited emails on my work email. They've further edited from a few IPs:

2601:647:5A00:70A0:34F6:CF54:1B0C:24AD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:647:5A00:70A0:81BD:97F:406E:3306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the account indef, pretty clear case of NOTHERE. I am not sure whether IPs need to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I totally missed that. I mistakenly thought they were referring to an off WP blog, not WP itself.

Sorry Femke. Crescent77 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2023 (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.

Extremely anti-Semitic user page

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:OwlHouseIsGarbage. Don't think I need to go into detail.

Box of wolves (feed) 17:17, 16 September 2023 (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:Realwomenfirst – thanks as an attack vehicle?

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 was just thanked for a pretty minor edit at WDKA by User:Realwomenfirst (actually I now realize they had thanked me once before). As soon as I clicked on their userpage, however, I started questioning the good faith of that thank because their userpage declares that they "stand with J. K. Rowling". I then checked their thanks log and noticed that many of their 20 thanks in the last five days have been of trans and nonbinary users. (The only exception I see is Silver seren.) The username and userpage contents, combined with the audience they are thanking, have me quite suspicious.

I would also add this new user has been mostly active in very not-new-user fields like reverting vandalism. 15 of their 29 edits have been using Twinkle, including a report at AIV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:13, 16 September 2023 (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 IP user on Ekadashi page

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 IP user 175.101.13.123 has incorporated poorly sourced information on the Ekadashi page and is engaging in edit war (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 ).

On their talk page, they have been issued a warning twice - for copyright violation and use of promotional material.

Chilicave (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. I think the IP should be temporarily page blocked since he is continuously adding same promotional content from the blog despite warnings.[26] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 months. The content is also copyvio as Chilicave said. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 15 September 2023 (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.

Apparently spurious closures of AfD discussions

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.

---

More eyes, please. See edit history of 2600:1001:B04C:7C80:B0DB:1C38:398A:9C3B (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

They're signing their edits as Blablubbs. Blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I've reverted some of the edits. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2023 (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.

They came back as Special:Contributions/108.58.79.74, which is also now blocked. Probably an LTA sockpuppet with a stupid vendetta. Block on sight. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User harassing editors past final warning

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.

---

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

This user has been repeatedly harassing other users (diff1, diff2 with RD3d edit summary, diff3), was given a final warning for it by Dudhhr in Special:Diff/1175383031, and then harassed Dudhhr in Special:Diff/1175476725.

^user:A smart kitten_meow 09:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. If they come back and carry on without improving their behaviour (or carry it on in their talk page in the mean time) we can extend that to an indef block. WaggersTALK 09:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any hope for them tbh. Secretlondon (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm all for giving second chances, but happy to reblock as indef if that's what we all think. WaggersTALK 10:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If it continues, I'll support an indefinite block. I tried to constructively engage with the editor, but they haven't budged. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2023 (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.

Qwerck is engaged in OR and revert war without engaging into discussiopns despite multiple warnings in their talk page

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 into their talk page, User_talk:Qwerck#Two_remarks. Today they again restored a dubious unreferenced statement I deleted previously twice.

The person is uncooperative (i.e., refuses to follow (ande discuss) the rules I indicated) and thinks that I have a personal vendetta. - Altenmann >talk 05:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I reviewed their edits. It turned out this is a new very prolific editor working in an underdeveloped area. Unfortunately they are very easy on referencing. I tagged some, added some refs and removed most egregious writings. - Altenmann >talk 06:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Qwerck as a sock. They really should be globally locked as are the other socks in this farm, and their creations should be G5ed, but I'm too tired to do either at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2023 (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.

Two editors are one and possible COI

Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replying to messages on Newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) talk page in a way which makes it reasonable to assume they are the same person. Both have only ever edited Simon Lee (academic), and I suspect a COI. Sebastian.newdigat12 has denied being the subject or a relative or employee, but has not denied having some other connexion. I don't think this is intentional socking, but it needs sorting out, and I have to say I find their edits to the article very hard to believe aren't done with the intention of promoting the subject. The article itself has been in a mess for years. Could someone take an admin-minded look at it all? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As you will see, my edits today have addressed material contained within the citations within the wiki for clarity. I was concerned about the questions asked by DuncanHill as they sought personal detail, which might be used for a range of purposes. As indicated in my responses, I am not Professor Lee, a relation, an employee, and have crossed professional paths with him over the years - I do have a high respect for him and his work, particularly with regard to the peace process in Northern Ireland.

I would agree that the article is a mess, it was a place of some unpleasantness at the time of its origin, but seems to have been tidied up and be less so more recently.

what I have added is supported by citation, or addresses an opinion added to a cited item adding personal subjective opinion, which I believe is not appropriate within Wikipedia.

There is no attempt to promote the subject, but rather to clarify material cited. Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As indicated to DuncanHill, to the best of my knowledge I am the only Newdigate who has contributed to this article. I did have a change of email address that may have caused the issue with appearing as two different contributors. Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also Sebastian Newdigate and Sebastian.newdigate1. This user was warned back in 2017 that they must declare use of multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_March_21#Talk_on_Wikipedia_Page_for_Simon_Lee_(Academic). They do not appear to have done so. Additionally, I'm concerned this is a single purpose account stretching back an impressive 14 years (to the very day). --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of SPA's in the history of the article. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Just found Sebastian a newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And Sebastion Newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sebastian.newdigate13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Topic ban this user from Simon Lee (academic) and Talk:Simon Lee (academic), restrict the user to a single account going forward. We can block all other accounts. It's time to put a stop to this. --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, account restriction, and blocks. User has indicated a desire to close an account. I advised them to engage here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sebastian.newdigate12 (ec) Changing your email in your account Preferences would not cause you to appear as two different accounts, unless you created a second account to add your new email address to(which is unnecessary, as you can just change your account preferences). 331dot (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Long term edit war on Ottoman battle articles by possible sockpuppets, 5 reverts within 2 hours

• Göktuğ538538 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keremmaarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Overvecht3301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Göktuğ538538

I would like to show the same boring edit war pattern, possible by the same users (case still open): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda

These users (or this sockpuppet user) always edit only the info boxes, rewrite many Ottoman battle articles to Ottoman victory, or if Ottoman lost he rewrite like "Ottomans not lost, but Ottomans just went home from a "picnic" due to the bad weather", he always decreases the number of Ottoman army and casualties while he always increases the number of the enemy and their casualties. Even he rewrote the famous Siege of Belgrade was just a "pyrrhic Hungarian victory" (which stopped the Ottomans for 70 years) and he rewrote the "Turks won the battle". He always remove modern academic sources and replace it with 200-500 years sources with bad referencing stlye that hard to check if true of twisted.

• Siege Güns: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather" Talk:Siege of Güns#RESULT 5 reverts within 2 hours: [27][28][29][30][31]
• Siege Vienna 1529: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Vienna_(1529)&diff=prev&oldid=1172458325
• Siege of Belgrade 1456: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"?
• Siege Jajce 1464: Talk:Siege of Jajce (1464)#Result
• Battle Nicopolis: Talk:Battle of Nicopolis#Army size and sources
• Battle of Keresztes: Talk:Battle of Keresztes#Sources, numbers
• Siege of Maribor 1532: Same bad weather excuse Talk:Siege of Maribor (1532)
• Battle of Mohacs: Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army
• Siege of Kruje 1467: Same edit war pattern by 2 possible sock users: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Krujë_(1467)&action=history

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Due to the great similarity of interest among these three editors, Keremmaarda, Göktuğ538538 and Overvecht3301, all wanting to change just the infoboxes of Ottoman battle articles and in similar ways, I would go ahead and block all three for WP:MEAT. The block would be based in this report and on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda. I ran a check but did not find anything conclusive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed a similarity in articles created by Keremmaarda, which are either sieges or battles, and articles created by Kurya Khan and Soldier of Seljuk 1071. These similarities all share the same issues: poorly written(example:"The Sultan reached the Danube after difficulty and suffering."), foreign language sources with no page numbers or impossible to verify, over reliance on primary source(s), and few if any English sources. Kurya Khan's article creation list and Soldier of Seljuk 1071's list are perfect examples. Note the number of deleted articles from both creation lists. I agree completely with Ed's suggestion of blocking all of them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, I asked many times readable documents to his always poorly referenced claims (and defending them with edit wars), finally he provided me some. I made a fast google translate of the provided Turkish text, and finally I found those texts does not contradict the original stage of the article what we always reverted, or he just twist the source, for example the modern historical source mentions what was in the past, but just as a mention not as a fact that "500 years ago Mr. X claimed that 1 million Ottomans was in the battle" then this user remove all modern academic estimations and rewrite the article "1 million Ottomans".

Examples:

Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army

Talk:Siege of Güns#RESULT

He starts the same edit war again, he created a new dubious article, then he claims the Hungarian king was a commander in Serbia(!) however the Hungarian king was not there at all (he was in Austria/Bohemia campaign, etc in that year) even the biggest Hungarian military history book does not know anything about that. [32] OrionNimrod (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Vijay Chaudhari / Draft:Vijay Chaudhary.

SocialTheVpm has moved around one or more versions of this draft to several titles in at least three different name spaces, and soon after I moved it back to drafts, they've created what looks like a copypaste version at Vijay Chaudhari. I've already tagged some of the redirs left behind for speedy, but now with this copypaste move there's probably also a histmerge needed, and to top it all, I suspect there might be COI and/or something else involved, so I'm not sure if the version currently in the article space should remain there or be sent to drafts also, or possibly even speedied as A7. It's all getting a bit too much for my addled brain, so can I leave this with someone who knows how to sort out the mess? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I've deleted couple of the redirects. Regarding the version in mainspace, keep in mind that users are allowed to contest draftifications, and re-creating the article in mainspace should be considered doing just that. I recommend you send it to AFD if you think it is unacceptable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I've fixed the copy-paste move. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ONUnicorn.

Sure they can contest draftification, but a copypaste move is hardly the optimal way to go about it, surely? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

...and now it turns out they are a paid editor, so should be going through AfC anyway, correct? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as a paid editor they should definitely be going through AFC. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's to moved back to draft, then may I suggest Draft:Vijay Chaudhary (politician) per WP:COMMONNAME, as the current title doesn't reflect the romanized spelling used in the references cited. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

At a minimum. I'd advocate SALTing mainspace to enforce AfC in the event they don't end up blocked which I'd advocate for. Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I will point out that all the advice at WP:COI and WP:PAID says they should use AFC, not that they must use AFC. The WP:DRAFTOBJECT policy excludes editors with a conflict of interest from being able object to draftification, but it also indicates that "A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc."

Regarding salting the mainspace title, I am not comfortable salting titles that have not had a deletion discussion. WP:SALT does not seem to prohibit salting pages without discussion, but I don't think it's best practice and I like to have the clear record of a discussion, deletion, and then repeated recreations. I don't think move-warring over a draft with no broader input by the community is quite there.

Again, I will reiterate that someone (not me) needs to take this to AFD. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to take it to AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Done: WP:Articles for deletion/Vijay Chaudhary (politician). Wikishovel (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'm happy to come there and !vote. I just think that it's frustrating that a COI editor flouts the rules (whether they shouldn't or mustn't publish directly, either way they have violated at least the spirit of that policy) with impunity, and as a consequence yet another case has to be opened at the already busy AfD. But hey ho. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it is frustrating as hell. Sorry if I jumped the gun on AFD before consensus was reached. Wikishovel (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely ditto. It's one thing if an established editor contests draftification. It's quite another for a conflicted, paid editor.

Nothing wrong @Wikishovel. It's the correct process, it just shouldn't be necessary. Star Mississippi 18:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Globally blocked

User:Juyiscally reappears as User:AOJCCD (removing tags related to the "Chinese New Left", interaction tool) and as User:SKhanask (removing tags related to the "Chinese New Left", interaction tool). Can anyone help look at this? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked:

• AOJCCD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• UBAUSN (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vinasn3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Siliuma (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

CC @Sotiale: You might want to take a look. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also

• Situany (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SKhanask (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WSZD1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thank you! ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As always, you can see that their CA has changed. Thanks, Blablubbs. --Sotiale (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Serious personal attacks by an IP user

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

---

link. Can we delete the revision? Also same IP user here, still editing. Beshogur (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What a nice person. I've blocked both the IPs, and revdelled the edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:06, 16 September 2023 (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.

Dicklyon and semi-automated edits

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

There is a general consensus that automated and semi-automated editing tool use by Dicklyon has been disruptive by being overly error prone, and by Dicklyon's failure to meaningfully address that problem after repeated requests to do so. Accordingly:

• Dicklyon is banned indefinitely by the community from making edits with any assistance from automated or semi-automated tools. All edits made while under this restriction must be made entirely manually. This is, of course, also a clear endorsement of the removal of Dicklyon from the AWB/JWB approval list during this discussion, and Dicklyon may not reapply for access to any such tools until this restriction is lifted by appeal.
  • For the sake of clarity, a manual edit is done by either opening the edit window in the wikimarkup editor, manually making any desired changes (with use of the tools normally present in the normal, unmodified editor interface), and after any desired previewing and edit summary entry, manually pressing the "Publish changes" button to publish the edit, or by using the Visual Editor utility with only the tools available in the normal, unmodified Visual Editor interface. A manual revert is also considered a manual edit.
  • Dicklyon is cautioned that edits which appear to be automated or automation-assisted, due to their rate or character, are likely to be viewed as violations of this restriction, as it is often impossible to tell with absolute certainty whether an automated tool was used for an edit. Dicklyon is strongly encouraged to edit at such a rate and in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt that the edits are being done manually, and to avoid any behavior which may be interpreted as boundary pushing.
  • This restriction will be logged at the list of community editing restrictions.
  • Dicklyon may appeal this restriction on the first instance no sooner than six months from today's date, and if such an appeal is unsuccessful, thereafter no sooner than six months from the date the most recent appeal was closed as unsuccessful.
• There is no consensus to restrict Dicklyon from capitalization or other MOS edits generally, provided that such edits are made in accordance with the above restriction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

---

User:Dicklyon has been using semi-automated editing to correct capitalization issues for many years, but has run into trouble with it many times as well. I recently saw some of his edits on my watchlist, but as they contained a lot of errors, I reverted them and posted to his talk page[33]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[34]. Issues include turning bluelinks into redlinks, changes inside refs (e.g. de-capitalizing titles), changing official names of organisations to decapitalized versions, ... Again Dicklyon gave some feebleassurances of slowing down, taking better care, but the error rate wasn't high, and so on. User:Pelmeen10[35] and User:Butlerblog[36] agreed with my criticism and requests to slow down, check things much better, ... From their responses, it became apparent that Dicklyon still didn't recognize the extent of the issues or the high error rate of his edits, so I checked the first edit of a new batch of "fixes" he did, and reported the rather terrible results[37], which continued all the previous issues and then some (lowercasing personal names, or the first word of a section heading). The full discussion can be seen at User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Can something please be done to make Dicklyon stop (topic ban, block, obligation to run a bot which first gets scrutiny and approval, or whatever solution is deemed best)? Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Remove from AWB checkpage - Dicklyon needs to have WP:JWB access removed by being removed from the AWB checkpage.

This is just the latest repeat of something that he has been warned about multiple times in the past (causing a high number of errors using a semi-automated editing tool), both on his talk page: [38] [39] and at AN/I: [40].

He's using the semi-automated edit tool JWB and the issue is he simply goes too fast - editing at bot-like speeds and is not carefully looking at his edits, which results in broken/red links, and other such problems, all of which have been specifically pointed out to him in previous discussions. At those speeds, WP:MEATBOT applies. In that previous ANI discussion, it was pointed out that he was editing at 30+ edits per minute. In this most recent issue that Fram pointed out above, I noted to Dicklyon that his editing rate reached speeds of 40+ edits per minute [41]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [42]. While I did not see errors in that last run, apparently Fram did.

He really seems to be more concerned with speed rather than accuracy. The speed vs accuracy problem has been pointed out many times, he has acknowledged it, and yet time and again he simply does not slow down. Instead, he speeds up. Per WP:AWB, AWB & JWB users are responsible for every edit made. His high error rates and unwillingness to slow down show that we cannot allow him to continue to use the tool. It's an easy solution, and if not taken, this will continue to happen in the future.

ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as this has all been pointed out to AND acknowledged by Dicklyon on multiple occasions, at this point the focus should be on whether the disruptive editing warrants removal of JWB access (either permanently or for a defined period, or any other sanction) as opposed to the "I promise to be more careful" response that we've already gotten in the past. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed Dicklyon's AWB access, if nothing else as a stopgap while this discussion proceeds to prevent further disruption. I will not necessarily be following this discussion, but if there ends up being a consensus to restore access I will not be objecting (though by all means ping me if my opinion on something is needed). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon response: On 28 August (over a week ago), Fram reverted 11 of my semi-automated edits, for a combination of errors, which I've discussed, learned from, corrected, and mostly not repeated (see User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes"); mostly, it was for not realizing that "IPC Alpine Skiing" is the name of an organization. I was editing too fast, not looking closely enough at the diffs, in a run about 1000 edits around that time, and made a few other errors, too, and I've been much more careful since. I asked him if he noticed or could find any more such problems, and he did not point out any more. Yesterday, he found some errors in an article that I had edited mostly by hand, while developing some regex patterns, over a period of many minutes. He pointed those out, and I've made another pass over that and a couple of subsequent edits. I don't see how this is a disruptive situation that requires intervention. I've done about 2000 JWB edits over the last week, and judging by what I can find and what's been reported, I think the error rate is probably around 1% (and even in those with errors, such as a case change in a reference title, there's usually a net improvement in the article). Most of these edits just clean up obvious over-capitalization (there's been no suggestion that anything I've done is controversial, just a few mistakes). As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• To judge the accuracy of this reply, let's just look at the final sentence: "As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out." My very first, short enough post in the section on your talk page made the explicit claim of turnuin bluelinks into redlinks in this edit, where you changed [[Super Giant Slalom skiing|super-G]] into [[Super Giant slalom skiing|super-G]] (lower case "slalom" in the piped link). So what do you 6 minutes after you have replied to my post about this? You create Super Giant slalom skiing. Yet now you claim not to know if you created any redlinks, and claim none have been pointed out? Too long ago perhaps? In my post yesterday evening in the same section, I even put in bold, turning bluelinks into redlinks, with a clear indication where you could find it. You changed [[2014 European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] into [[2014 European Women's artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] (downcasing "artistic" inside the piped link, the same also in the Men competition link), which turned two bluelinks into two redlinks. If you can't even see (or admit) this after it has been pointed out to you, and even explicitly claim the opposite, then your being "very careful" is of little value. Fram (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure enough, looks like I fixed those few and forgot. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I see now, that's going back to the one redlink found and fixed on August 25. And then on Sept. 4 I made two more in one huge article that I editted slowly. Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• As for your claims of making inbetween a few thousand edits with a very low error rate, I notice that you switched to a much simpler change (downcasing "Association Football"), but that a) most of your edits are of the type discouraged by AWB and the like (purely cosmetic changes of piped links, e.g. [43][44][45][46][47]), and b) inbetween you make halfbaked changes, turning the visible text "Association Football" into "Association football" in the middle of a sentence, which is not an improvement[48], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[49]. Fram (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note that fixing a piping through a miscapitalized redirect is not purely cosmetic. It not only avoids the redirect, by piping instead through the actual title, or by skipping the redirect, but it is also part of the maintenance process of trying to get things out of WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I'm not claiming that you should care about these small benefits, but the latter is part of an overeall work pattern to improve the encyclopedia, not done for cosmetic reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Fram They seem to somehow still be doing semi-automated edits despite having had AWB rights revoked? I highly doubt this edit [50] (which I just reverted for a multitude of reasons) was done manually. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough I guess. So while this discussion is ongoing, and after their AWB access was removed, they make "case fixes" inside urls. I guess we can throw all assurances of being very careful and having a very low error rate and so on into the bin. Is there anything short of a block that will drive home the message? It took indef blocks to solve some their earlier editing issues. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I started by copying the text from an open JWB editor, and hadn't gotten around to finishing correcting it before it got reverted. It's fixed now. You can add 1 to my count of error files. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You said in the comment I replied to that you had "started by copying the text from an open JWB editor". That is semi-automated editing, as you are using the output of a JWB run as the basis to start your edit.

You really should not be publishing edits that you know in advance are broken in some way. There's a reason why we have a preview button, so that you can see the results of any edit you're about to make and give you the time to fix it before you publish. As with all of the previous times your conduct has come up in relation to this type of issue, you need to slow down a lot. Focus on quality over quantity, and verify your edits are correct before pushing the publish button. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. That is a really shockingly bad approach to take towards editing articles. While edits don't need to be perfect, and some mistakes will happen as we're (mostly) all human, no-one should be publishing something that they believe to be broken from the outset. That is another sign that you need to slow down. Again, quality over quantity is what is important.

To answer your question, yes I always check what I'm publishing before I publish it. At minimum I check for spelling, punctuation, Engvar issues, date formatting issues, source reliability, factual accuracy, copyvios, and close paraphrasing. Those are all things you should be keeping an eye out for before you hit the publish button, as it saves others a lot of work by catching and cleaning up after you when you do make mistakes. Depending on the page and topic, as I edit a lot of contentious topic areas, I also check to make sure I'm not introducing/re-introducing text for which there is a consensus to exclude, as well as any text for which there is a consensus for a specific version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Given how the rest of this discussion is going, I would suggest that you strike and rephrase this, along with the final sentence in your reply, as casting aspersions about my editing and speculating over my own experience levels and state of mind will not be helping your situation.

However, if you check my first edit in that sequence, you'll see that I was dealing with an NPOV concern on a dual CTOP article (BLP and GENSEX). My second edit, the one that you linked to, was adjusting the text that was present prior to the NPOV issue being introduced to bring it in line with standard terminology on this topic. Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors (for the point on Davies' BBC Question Time), the title of one publisher and one book (for the point on the Dorling Kindersley book), and a possible en/em dash issue. It would also be a better investment of my editorial time to convert that list into prose, per the maintenance tag which has been on that section for a little over a year. But we're not here to discuss my edits, we're here to discuss your edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find That's not what I said. I said that an editor should always check what content they're changing before they publish it. As in, if you edit a sentence, or paragraph, or citation, you verify that the edit you're about to make isn't going to introduce any new errors. That applies whether you're fixing or rewriting existing content, or adding wholly new content.

You don't need to fix everyone else's errors in a single edit, or fix an entire section when you're fixing a single sentence, paragraph, or reference, but you do have a responsibility to make sure that your edits are as error free as humanly possible. And that is I'm afraid, based on this discussion and the previous discussions, something that you seem to struggle with, particularly with regards to automated and semi-automated mass changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to gauge whether the changes are a net improvement because messing up even a single internal link or a reference url, or a title of a work, which can be a bit of a sneaky error, that future editors might fail to notice, is hard to appraise against having some obviously incorrectly capitalized words sorted out, which is a nice thing to do, but it's also kind of trivial, and such things do get fixed along the way as any article reaches a certain state of maturity. These fixes should follow along the trajectory of the article getting actually better while not introducing any errors that will be difficult to notice even much further down the line. —Alalch E. 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• At some point sanctions beyond a prohibition on automated editing are probably necessary, including a topic ban from MOS edits entirely or a block beyond that. Error rate aside, I don't think the changes Dicklyon are making are important enough they need to be automated. This is grammar pedantry of the highest order, and the only thing worse than pedantry for the sake of it is pedantry that's incorrect. Error rates of even "just" 1% when making thousands of edits is still more mistakes than is likely uninvolved editors are going to be able to spot, track, and fix. It's inherently disruptive, has no real benefit for the project, and we've been down this road before with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do understand that editing too fast such that I make mistakes is an issue, and I did a bit of that a week ago, as I've admitted repeatedly and have done my best to fix. But Fram is now saying that since I made mistakes in another article while editing slowly and carefully I need some kind of intervention, and you're saying that what I'm doing isn't even in the good of the project (you call it "grammar pedantry of the highest order", which I find offensive, though I do practice a bit of pedantry when I think it will help). I don't understand how you think that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the specifics of this case, but I'm familiar with this editor. Previous ANI's on this editor have had long drawn out wall of text comments that ultimately discouraged participation. Dicklyon has had an opportunity to address the issues brought up here and now let others contribute. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you refer to past interactions, an archive link is a good idea. Of course you're a bit familiar, as you are the one who initiated the last complaint at ANI, which was pretty much baseless, and on a mild dispute that you weren't really even part of. I still think too much discussion is not an infraction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Please read this entire discussion: User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Fram is making overblown claims of a Dicklyon error rate, and Dicklyon is bending over backward to satisfy Fram, who appears now to have arrived at an expectation of absolute perfection on first attempt, and to have no patience for Dicklyon correcting his own few inevitable mistakes. I'm not buying it. I've been watching this dicussion unfold post-by-post since Aug. 25 (without getting involved), and at every turn Dicklyon has been entirely open to criticism and to adjusting his JWB editing to be more precise and, basically trying to make Fram (and Pelmeen10 and ButlerBlog) happy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I meant it as a suggestion/request; have clarified the wording. As for "inevitable", I mean that everyone makes mistakes, and a large cleanup job cannot reasonably be expected to have a 0.000% error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  If this were the only time this has happened, the penitent response would be adequate. But this is a pattern that continues to be repeated. The first rule at WP:AWBRULES is: You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. Can you review the edit you're making when doing 30, 40, and 60 edits per minute? The rules are clear: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. Personally, I think that alone is adequate. Honestly, per WP:MEATBOT, he could/should be treated as a bot, and thus per WP:BOTBLOCK, operating as an unapproved bot could result in a soft-block. I haven't asked for that, and I don't know if I would support that as necessary. But operating JWB and AWB comes with more responsibility than manual editing. If it's being abused, the only reasonable response is to remove him from the checkpage. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• At what point do we finally state that enough is enough? What matters is both the error rate and the number of errors, which combined with repeatedly IDHT and failures to improve standards while making bot-like edits is something that resulted in blocks and complete automation bans for Batacommand and Rich Farmbrough at least. I'm also utterly unsurprised at SMcCandlish bending over backwards to avoid seeing any problems with Dicklyon's edits, because it happens every time Dick gets brought to ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that my mind remains unchanged isn't somehow a failing on my part. Dicklyon gets brought to ANI with weaksauce evidence, a badgering personal-beef vibe to the accusations, and ignoring of any attempts to Dicklyon to address the concerns. I don't find this nonsense persuasive, and trying to turn this discussion to be about me isn't going to do it either. It's ad hominem hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This editor's lack of attention to detail is frustrating. I refer you to this discussion and the one below it from October 2022, in which the editor seemed to think that it was acceptable to ask other people to check their edits when it was pointed out that the editor had made hundreds of bad edits. As a hard-core gnome and someone who has made tens of thousands of minor syntax fixes that sometimes annoy other editors by filling their watchlists, I am sympathetic to Dicklyon's desire to fix minor errors. But when you are making thousands of minor edits that may already be annoying to people, it is extra important to avoid making errors along the way, and to respond fully and rapidly when a helpful editor takes the time to notify you of your errors. Dicklyon does not have a pattern of responding well when errors are pointed out, and the editor does not have a pattern of carefully checking the output of their edits. Some kind of restriction appears to be overdue, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the threads you linked to, suggest that this may well be a speed issue, and apparently, the editor not handling the increased speeds very well. - jc37 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon - Based upon your sentence: "It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast." lead me to want to ask something. This is not me asking the community to chime in on some sort of sanction, I'm just asking you, based upon your own discernment, and self-awareness.

What do you think about taking a break from AWB for a few months, to give you more of an opportunity to get a handle on your editing practices? - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had considered asking you the question on your talk page. But I thought that that could just merely split the discussion.

I thought that perhaps if you took a break from AWB for now, that might resolve any short-term concerns. But I can see how that could also be problematic for you in the future. Hence my asking what you thought.

Thank you again for your assessment. - jc37 04:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-read that again after (re-)reading WP:AWB. And Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use Rule #1 comes to mind. Asking others to essentially WP:SOFIXIT (Wikipedia:Someone else fix it), when it's a mistake that you made through lack of diligence with semi-automated tools, isn't the best look. The second part of WP:BOLD is "but not WP:RECKLESS". AWB is unambiguously clear that you are responsible for your edits. And that includes cleaning up your mistakes. Others can of course help if they are willing, but there should not be a presumption that others are your clean-up crew. This dances a bit too close to WP:FAIT as well. I really want to AGF here, but the more I look, the more concerns I start to see.

Let's keep this as simple and straight-forward as possible: Dicklyon - Do you agree that, per policy and guidelines, you are responsible for all the edits on your account, regardless of whether they are done with tools or not? And do you agree that if edits that are unambiguously errors are discovered, that you are responsible for correcting them in a timely manner? - jc37 18:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

?????? Please read the discussion I linked above. This editor repeatedly wrote some variant of "Please do let me know (or just revert) if you see any other errors or non-useful edits that I've made. I fixed a bunch of stuff with a few redirects, but I'm sure more will turn up." This is NOT the same as inspecting every edit carefully to look for errors and then fixing them. The behavior continued over a period of more than a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to surface this comment from upthread, with caveated commentary. First, I've made a lot of trivial gnoming edits in my own contributions (like ensuring bylines and publication dates are present in obituary notices for some reason), sometimes accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "why am i fixing this?". Second, I have been too busy to do anything useful here for about two weeks now, as my contribution history should show. Third, I often knowingly introduce errors which I fix in the subsequent edit, usually a no-target error from citing a source I haven't added yet, although I also sometimes inadvertently duplicate |date= parameters because I miss their presence when fixing up all the parameters some referencing script missed or got wrong.

Having said that, the aforementioned comment: I did look carefully at the preview ... and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way....

Turning a single bluelink red, or messing up a single reference url, are not really that big of a deal. But it's my position that one of those errors is more worse than maybe 150 MOSed recapitalisations – or 25 completed obituary citations – is better. The work being done here is, in the broad view, extremely trivial, so the accompanying error rate should be extremely low. This exact kind of error is why WP:CONTEXTBOT.

If a "careful look" at the preview is still resulting in multiple errors; if errors are suspected "whether or not" semi-automated tools are used, it seems to me that rate limiting is the solution here. I don't think there's any technical way to cap a human user at, say, six edits a minute, but keeping the JWB permissions revoked seems like a positive step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Thryduulf and David Fuchs. At what point do we run out of patience? If it was down to me alone, I would have run out a long time ago. Enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  ... and you have a demonstrated history of defending the same, along with vociferous agreement with the stances. Should we therefore similarly accuse you of knee-jerk reactions in defense of a faction? Ravenswing 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish it's true you have repeatedly accused me of that, but the accusations are a mix of partially true, misleading and false. I have long been critical of the behaviour of you and Dicklyon (both MOS regulars with a very long history of vociferously disagreeing with opinions that differ from your own) but only because of your behaviour. I have never agitated against MoS being applicable either to topics I care about or otherwise, what I have done is disagreed with your interpretation of some MoS guidelines and disagreed with your interpretation of/characterisation of evidence in some specific cases. Finally I don't regard Dicklyon (or you) as enemies.

  Now I've dealt with the entirely uncalled-for ad homimens... when someone has an error rate and volume as high as Dicklyon's, for as long as Dicklyon's, without evidence of understanding why editors are upset about those errors or demonstrating an ability to edit without making so many errors, taking steps to protect the encyclopaedia is what we do things.

  If you'd actually read what I wrote, rather than assuming I was trying to pursue a "witch hunt" you seem to think is the only reason I might have a different opinion, you would see that I was asking questions about what the scope should be rather than arguing that he should be topic banned from "an entire swath of guidelines and processes". Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general Nope. Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll take this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would tend to agree with the assessment by SMcCandlish. Per WP:AWBRULES, DL does accept responsibility for their edits. They do remedy any error they have made when these are pointed out and they have acknowledged that they were proceeding too fast (initially) in this case. WP is a collaborative project based on a principle of continuous improvement. Collaborative improvement occurs through positive feedback. Even preceded by please, undo all your "slalom" related "case fixes" ...by creating a mixed case nightmare... is a demand, it does not move things forward, and it is negative feedback. There is an underlying battle ground tone. The argument is that DL's edits have a high error rate. What is too high? Arguably, he would claim to be running at about 1%. Is this too high? I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Sounds a bit WP:POTish to me. There is an assertion that AWB type edits should be more accurate (have less errors) than edits made manually. It is a fallacious assertion that the oversight provided to an AWB edit can be more accurate than that applied to a manual edit. When one editor may not see a particular tree for the woods, another will see it as if it stood alone in a field. This occurs regardless of whether we are talking about manual or semiautomated edits. It has been my observation over time that DL uses feedback to not only correct an error in a particular article but to learn from this, correct any mis-identification of a pattern, ultimately correct similar errors that may have occurred in other article and prevent the same error occurring in further like edits. This is collaborative editing. It is certainly not leaving a mess for others to fix. It is a process of continuous improvement through successive iterations. If they were leaving a mess for others to clean up, then there would be good reason for complaint but this is not the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Not all errors are equally problematic. Typos in wikipedia and user talk space are basically a non-issue except in very rare cases where that contributes to genuine misunderstanding; broken links in mainspace actually negatively impact on our readers. Suggesting that people shouldn't object to introducing errors in article space if they make typos in wikipedia space is absurd. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, errors in main-space are more consequential than errors on TPs. However, my point is that every body makes errors and my question was what is too high. Yes, breaking links or corrupting a reference is significant but a spelling error can also be significant if it is a miss-matched word that creates a totally different meaning. DL has acknowledges the significance of the errors. But has everyone here never made a similar mistake? Has everyone here never had a bad-hair wiki day? What quantum of errors are we actually talking about? Yes, leaving 50 errors for others to clean up would be cause for complaint but has DL done this? However, this is not the case. If someone points out one error in one article that he did not recognise, DL looks for and fixes similar errors he may have created. This is being responsible for the edits he creates. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• I would support a community activity ban on Dicklyon from using JWB/AWB and any other mass-text-editing-engine for 6 months. Lourdes 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Lourdes and would support banning Dicklyon from mass-editing for six months. As others have noted, this isn't the first time the community has expressed concerns about the error rate with Dicklyon's mass edits, and it wasn't that long ago. To address the question of what the "expected" error rate is with AWB/JWB, I would say that it ought to be zero. Yes, mistakes will happen, but they should be few and far between. You should be reviewing every edit for sanity, both via diff and preview. If Dicklyon isn't doing that, that's a problem. If he is doing that and not catching the errors that he's introducing, that's also a problem. The nature of the changes is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal : Site ban

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've just read through the discussion. A few points I've noticed - firstly, I agree with Sideswipe9th that fixing egregious BLP violations, factual inaccuracies or bias in articles is much more important than fixing capitalisations. I also agree that not breaking URLs in articles is more important than minor capitalisation issues. Looking at this, I just get the impression that Dicklyon does not recognise how much of a problem he is, and how much he needs to slow down and take more care editing. So I'm going to propose that For continued bot-like editing, despite previous warnings and resolve to improve, Dicklyon is site banned. Your thoughts, please. (I'm not going to !vote one way or the other as I have a known bias against the perceived value of these sort of edits.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Any thoughts on why a site ban is needed here rather than a topic ban? User has a long block log, but only 2 blocks in the last 5 years. Normally problems with AWB/JWB/semi-automated editing would not get a user a site ban so I am curious if I am missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. Usual story: long-time editor inevitably makes enemies—such as me—through having been here a long time, doesn't realise, notice or care that he's slowly putting an awful lot of noses of joint until a critical mass is reached and site bans can be suggested in faux-but-I'm-only-thinking-of-the-project-handwringing impartiality. Step back and await pile-on of aforementioned enemies and the subsequent leverframe bloc vote. Arrivederci, Roma. SN54129 12:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to oppose at this point, although trying a topic ban from automated edits and from the manual of style (but better defined than that) is I think my first preference. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about your earlier response to my post about an MOS TBAN, I'm just wondering whether it's possible to clearly define what MOS edits are. The issue isn't just automated edits, it's also other disruptive MOS editing as can be seen in previous ANIs. If someone can define MOS edits then TBANs would be preferable. If they can't then maybe it has to be a site ban. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes definitions are tricky. My first thoughts (which probably need to be refined) would be stopping

• Edits that only change capitalisation
• Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links

For both only in the article (and draft?) namespaces I think, with an exception for their own contributions when they are the most recent edit (no benefit in preventing them from fixing a typo they made). I would allow them to request such changes on article talk pages, as long as this is kept to a reasonable number but I don't know how to define "reasonable number". Additional points may be required but I think these are the basic two.

Given past issues that brought them to ANI it needs to be explicitly stated whether commenting on and/or initiating requested moves, RfCs, and similar regarding MoS issues should be included in the topic ban, and I'm not going to express an opinion either way beyond saying it needs to be actively considered.

Any MoS-related topic ban should be separate from any automation-related topic ban both for clarity now and to allow them to be appealed separately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, a piping restriction should not apply to links they add to articles while they are the most recent person to edit a page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban - too much too quick. This isn't a decade ago. We have more options available before jumping to full siteban. - jc37 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Prefer the below suggestion. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose See support proposal below. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - When the objective is to remove a bent nail from the wall, one does not use a sledgehammer to tear the wall down when the claw end of a hammer will suffice. Our objective when working with editors that are causing disruption is to close off those specific vectors in which they are disruptive, in the hopes that they can continue to be effective in other areas of Wikipedia. I think SN54129 is echoing (rather glibly) my perceptions here that Dicklyon has made some very high-profile enemies here through his apparent failure to understand the depth of his disruption, and perhaps in some way that informs the siteban. But to me, reading this as an outside observer, it still seems too excessive a response. For now. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The semi-automated ban suggestion below is a better first step, and echo what WaltClipper said above. It could be argued that it's warranted given his sanction history, but I would suggest that those issues were several years ago and this isn't exactly the same thing. However, in order to warrant a site ban we need to know that the issues extend beyond those of just issues around the operation of a semi-automated editing tool. At this point, I don't think that has been established. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill and I've seen their work and valuable expertise in other areas.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (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.

Proposal : Banned from all automated or semi-automated editing

Sticking this in here. Its clear what the problem is, from the long history of issues Dicklyon isnt really interested in doing a better job to avoid the errors, so realistically the only option is to forbid them from doing the thing that is causing the problems. For clarity, this would also include the example above where they are copying from an output. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: These usually have a time frame for appeal. Several above have suggested 6 months. - jc37 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support For the record though, I think this will just end up the way all the other banned automated editors went. Constant boundary-testing incurring increasing sanctions that stop them doing what they want to do without oversight, until they reach the point after many long time-wasting discussions where they end up site-banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You understand everything, Godfather. SN54129 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support A site ban is too much. Dicklyon has a tendnecy to move too fast which is a problem for automated editing where attention to detail is a higher priority. This doesn't make Dicklyon a bad editor, just an editor not suited for this particularly task. I'm not sure I would be suited for it either. Hopefully, he recognizes his limitations so this doesn't escalate further as pointed out by Only in death. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The combination of an automation ban and a separate MOS-related ban (per my comments above) are the best way forward at this time, and hopefully it wont escalate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per my comments above on the siteban proposal. Minimum timeframe for appeal needs to be a year at minimum, and in addition, I think we need maybe to not be so ordinarily merciful in granting such an appeal when that timeframe does arrive. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I truly believe the present issue is due to speed. The types of errors generated are specific evidence that he hasn't been able to write regexes that completely evaluate the potential change, leading to false positives and that edits need to be more carefully reviewed prior to saving. I want to be extremely clear on this point - it's not the regex problem that is the reason for supporting this, nor is it just the number or type of errors alone. It's the fact that knowing that and acknowledging it, those issues continue without a change in approach. Had this been the first time pointing it out, my position would be to simply say, "hey, slow down and make sure to look at what you're doing". But, that is what has already been said more than once. It's not a battleground mentality or personal animus to say that if we don't take the tool away, we'll be having this same conversation time and again. It's simply saying that having been warned about it many times, there has to be a consequence when things have not changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Seems necessary and is proportionate.—Alalch E. 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support A good resolution and not a severe restriction. Maybe add appealable in a year and autoexpire in 2 years. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, this escalated quickly from a talk page discussion where the issue seemed to have been handled to an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal which has no set time limit. I'd support maybe a two-week ban from the tools, just to make a point, but removing their use from an editor who has probably made thousands of good tool edits for every handful of incorrect edits (which, when pointed out, he has fixed in good faith and politeness) seems like excess punishment for doing a huge amount of work with some glitches along the way. Tool use is a steep learning curve and Dicklyon has been mastering it and is learning from his mistakes. This ban stops his learning curve before he becomes perfect at the tasks, and would be an overall loss to the project's potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify this: ...an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal - These came essentially at the same time, and should probably be viewed as two alternative possibilities. As you can see, the other had zero support as so was closed already. This alternative probably should not be viewed through the lens of having being proposed since the other failed. It was presented at the same time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Dicklyon was unblocked in 2015 after socking with a requirement to "avoid large scale, controversial actions". [51]. So hardly a new issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum (no appeal for 12 months), but with the addition of an MOS edits TBAN per Thryduulf and as Thryduulf's defined it in the above closed siteban thread. The disruption isn't just via automated edits. This is a long-standing issue with multiple previous ANIs. Time to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support with minimum 6 months before being able to appeal. Dickylon needs a bit more care and attention to their work. They are very receptive to making corrections when they are pointed out, but the pointing out of errors happens to often. It's something that would likely be solved with more preparation and thought before carrying out the automated tasks. A period of manual editting and more careful attention may help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There are perhaps three premises for this proposal. Because DL makes errors, DL makes too many errors. This is an unreasonable standard. DL makes errors and creates work for others to clean up. If DL creates errors, he creates work for himself to clean up. You are making errors, stop it and revert everything. You are not listening to me! DL takes heed, adjusts, corrects and moves forward. I think that Randy and I are of a similar position. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support (and support the topic-ban proposal below). Related thread from a year and a half ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon_and_pointless_edits_once_again. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose My interactions with this user have been positive. I'd need clear evidence that his errors are outweighing the good done by his many thousands of edits. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. This conversation has happened too many times. Removal of all automated privileges seems appropriate. - Skipple ☎ 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per my comments and questions above, Dicklyon needs to slow down in their editing. A TBAN from using automated and semi-automated editing will resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose—per Randy Kryn above. Let me say that Dicklyon has admirable expertise in language, style, and of course editing. We cannot afford to lose his input. What I see here is that a clique of capitalisation lovers has come out in full to thwart his good work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Stipulating that (as some of the opposes state) Dicklyon does indeed have "admirable expertise in language," that some editors have had positive interactions with him, and that tools have learning curves, none of that in the least degree addresses the problem that this proposal seeks to mitigate: that Dicklyon is careless with automated tools, does not monitor them properly, has an unacceptably high error rate, and that this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Whether or not he's a hell of a swell fellow is irrelevant. The first time I used AWB I screwed up a number of articles, got a finger waggling for it, promised to do better and not screw up in the future, and did so. Paying attention just isn't that freaking hard, and for those for whom it is, those are people who shouldn't be using automated tools. Ravenswing 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support The errors appear to be a consistent problem with this editor. This is far from the first discussion on this topic from them and their responses in the thread above don't give me faith that they will correct anything in their editing activity, particularly since they were still doing the same kinds of edits and errors while this ANI discussion was ongoing. A ban on such semi-automated editing seems like the minimum we can do to prevent this. Silverseren^C 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is not about the merits of capitalisation or other style choices. I don't think most people have strong feelings about that and most who do would abide by whatever consensus emerges. The issue here is that Dicklyon has been making large numbers of edits that introduce problems to articles (like breaking piped links or altering proper nouns). Dicklyon has made it clear that he's not interested in fixing these mistakes and his track record suggests there's little chance of the problems going away. This is what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. We've seen it with Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand, Lugnuts, and others. This will hopefully be the watershed moment that gets Dicklyon to rethink his approach; if not, it's a necessary step on the road to a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support many of the errors stem from attempting too much speed and several prior statements that they will slow down have not stopped the problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comment in the previous section. I'm not sure, pace the opposers, what capitalization, or positive interactions, have to do with automated editing. There's a long-standing principle that automated edits are held to a high standard. Editors have been sanctioned, or banned, for introducing errors and not being sufficiently mindful about addressing them. This isn't new, and this isn't the first time the issue has been raised with Dicklyon. Go slower. Be more careful. There's no time limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Nemov. Number 57 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support ~ this isn't a new issue, as is shown above; it has been bubbling under for years and the time to resolve it is now. Per HJ Mitchell. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cinderella157 encapsulates this perfectly above. Dicklyon is not infallible, but fixes his own mistakes, and is clearly listening to and adjusting based on criticism of his error rate. At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit, during which DL could re-read the related documentation, policies, etc., and work on better regexes to sharply reduce his error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  re At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit: I think most everyone would agree with you on that. There should be a timeframe for appeal. It looks like a couple have suggested 6 months, and most who included an appeal timeframe in their comments have noted a year. North8000 suggested appealable in 1 year, autoexpire in 2. I would certainly support some level of autoexpire where he could reapply on the AWB request page. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. I hadn't really considered that. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Removing semi-automated editing premission will likely reduce Dick's rate of editing and therefore mitigate most of the errors that had been mentioned here. The other solutions proposed here seem overly draconic, and I suspect that they are partially motivated by old grudges. Av = λv (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The most sensible approach, is relatively harmless to all parties, which still leaves DL plenty of editing in his chosen area, just without a particular tool to do so. (Per time-limit, I think the default is indefinite with first appeal to the community after six months and biannually thereafter.) SN54129 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This seems narrowly tailored towards mitigating the disruption and seems preventative in nature. I do hope that slowing down the editing rate will help to ensure that the rate of false positives/breakages created will substantially decreases. Dicklyon has performed tremendously helpful gnomish work on Wikipedia over the years, for which he deserves thanks and gratitude, but I echo HJ Mitchell's concerns about what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support for 2 reasons; A) This isn't the first time Dicklyon has been at ANI over their semi-automated edits and B) The carelessness of their edits is concerning.

As someone who too makes semi-automated edits I'm baffled as to how they can make so many edits and not review any of them ?. Sure we all make mistakes and I have too made mistakes with WP:WPCleaner but I've reviewed and fixed those edits as any normal editor should?. If you can't be bothered to check your edits then shouldn't be using semi-automated tools period. –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This has been an ongoing issue for far too long already, and this proposal is the most basic measure to start mitigating it. --Sable232 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Given the potential for widespread damage to the wiki, the standard for automated or semi-automated editing ought to be higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This has been going on too long. A prohibition on automated and semi-automated editing will still allow him to contribute to the encyclopedia if he doesn't persist in thinking that he needs to do semi-automated editing. If he persists in automated or semi-automated editing, then he is a net negative, but that is up to Dicklyon. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, those who can't get their error rate down to an acceptable level sometimes need to be separated from power tools. —Kusma (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support beyond the restriction below, for the same reasoning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has shown a reluctance to accept reponsibility for the results of their semi-automated editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support If the penitence hadn't been summarily discarded a year ago when the eye of ANI was removed, we wouldn't be here. They only have themselves to blame. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support Its not about "error rate". That is meaningless on its own. It's about sheer volume of edits and how that makes for a lot more work for others. A person making 100 edits with an error rate of 2% makes two errors. No big deal. A person making 100,000 edits with the same error rate makes 2,000 errors. That's a lot of work for others to fix. Especially since the rate inherently increases when speed is prized over accuracy. oknazevad (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban on drive-by recapitalisation and repiping, details apply

There has been some support for this, but discussion has been fragmented so putting it as a formal proposal. This is basically what I wrote above but a bit tighter.

Dicklyon is topic banned from:

• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that only or primarily change capitalisation.
• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
• Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links, excluding pages in their own user and user talk space.

These restrictions do not apply to content they added since the last other person edited the page.

These restrictions do not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism.

This restriction is separate from and additional to any ban related to automated editing. It may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after it is enacted. Making an excessive number of requests of other editors to make change that this restriction topic ban prohibits should be seen as gaming the restriction. "Excessive" is not explicitly defined and depends on the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, but frequency of requests, number of total and concurrent requests, accuracy of requests and other factors may all be considered.

Copyedits and suggestions are more than welcome, especially to the first does not apply to line (I've rewritten that about a dozen times and I'm still not happy with it). The intent there is to allow them to make as many changes to piping and capitalisation as they want until someone else edits the page, at which point they no longer can. Given the lack of explicit response to the RM and other discussion comments I made I'm not adding that to the proposal at the current time, but I really would like to see it explicitly addressed (whether that's a "this is a problem", "this is not a problem" or something in between). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) per my comments in multiple other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  As I have explained repeatedly and at length my motivations are not "anti-MOS", they are pro applying the MoS with care, common sense, and due regard for behavioural policies. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Going to be helpful in tandem with the ban on automated/semi-automated editing, and will functionally form a coherent whole.—Alalch E. 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support as I noted in my support for the automated TBAN, this is needed as well as the history of disruption as evidenced by previous ANIs goes beyond automated editing. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous over-reach. At most, Dicklyon should be removed from JWB/AWB permission for a time until those with concerns are satisfied he understands the tool use responsibliities better. The second of the bullet-points above is frankly daft; we have MOS:ARTCON for a reason, and this bullet would force Dicklyon to violate it. I warned above that Thryddulf was seeking an over-broad T-ban to "get rid of an opponent" on MoS applicability (especially in capitalization), that Thryduulf is a long-term, habitual gadfly about; Thryduulf vociferously denied this, yet here we are with a propsal that precisely fits what I predicted, and which has absolutely nothing to do with alleged miuse of JWB semi-automation, which is what this ANI is about. And obviously "this is not a problem" is the answer to Thryduulf's desire to expand this proposal even further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Being critical of an easily observable behavior pattern is not a "personal attack". And you clearly don't understand ARTCON; it is literally not possible that it means that introduction of a single inconsistency renders the guideline moot, or we could not have that guideline. What it really obviously means (as do all other consistency guidelines and policies on WP, such as WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ERA, WP:CONSISTENT, etc., etc.) is that if the material is mostly consistent toward one direction, inconsistencies that go the other direction should be reversed to conform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  It would appear that you think because this is about the misuse of a semi-automated tool, that the resulting sanction has to be limited to removal of that tool? What part of WP:MEATBOT do you not understand? Bot-like editing can result in being treated as a bot, misuse of which can ultimately result in being indeffed. Thryduulf's proposal is significantly less impactful. You'd be better served to simply stick to addressing the proposal rather than the proposer. I'm still on the fence, but taking both of your statements at face-value, I see a higher level of personal animus in your approach to Thryduulf than they have against you your approach to Thryduulf is the one that comes accross as being loaded with personal animus. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Dickylon's changes haven't been against MOS, but rather not showing due care when making those MOS compliant changes with AWB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add I don't see anything added after my initial comment as reason to support this tban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose No actual misconduct unrelated to (semi-)automated editing has been presented here. The topic ban on that is sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per this ANI thread and the previous ones. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User:_Dicklyon,_behavioral_issues_on_the_topic_of_capitalization was just three months ago; several other ones can be found in the ANI archives [52]. According to an editor from a past ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon_and_page_moves, Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Dicklyon was also previously blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) and his sockpuppets' edits revolved around MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, again, too far for the wrong reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While automated edits were made in the context of the MOS, there was nothing inherently controversial about the nature of these edits that would warrant such action. This seems like an opportunistic gambit to settle old scores. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Some1. If this was a one time thing I'd understand, but if the issues are continually happening in one area then it's time for a break in that one area. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - excessively draconian and seems more like WP:POINTY cruel and unusual punishment than a real sanction. The issue is over his automated edits; I don't see why we should bar him wholly from MOS edits when the issue was specifically how the automated edits had an excessively high inaccuracy rate. Butlerblog (talk · contribs) has invoked WP:MEATBOT, but that ignores the issue that the automated process were more inaccurate than they would be under a human editor. Additionally, no Some1 (talk · contribs) - nearly decade-old misconduct from at least 2015 is not a substantive argument to invoke sanctions in 2023. — Knightoftheswords 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't decade-old conduct, it's conduct that has been ongoing for a decade. There have been at least two maybe three ANI threads about Dicklyon and MOS-related conduct in the past ~18 months. All of which identified issues with their editing but failed to reach a consensus that the problems were bad enough or that there was no prospect of improvement going forwards. We've now moved forwards and the promised improvements haven't materialised. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to make the non-comprehensive timeline more clear:

  • Dicklyon was given a 6-month ban on page moves [53] after this 2015 ANI thread (capitalization related) in which another editor said Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year and that he has made unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. [54]
  • Dicklyon was blocked for sockpuppetry in May 2015; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive. His socks' edits were MOS related (mainly capitalization).
  • An editor from a previous ANI thread said Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. That was from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves which, again, is capitalization-related (May 2020).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon was in March 2022 (mass edits related to capitalization).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon and pointless edits once again was in April 2022 (decapitalization edits, semi-automated edits).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization was three months ago in May 2023.

  This isn't a one time issue that occurred in 2015 and suddenly reoccurred again September 2023. It's a long-term pattern of disruption...with the same user (Dicklyon) over the same capitalization topic area... for almost a decade. I know the proposal title says "MOS edits topic ban" which is a bit misleading and seems wider than it really is, but as the proposal states, it's Making edits ... that only or primarily change capitalisation. Making edits ... that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit. That's not "excessively draconian" at all. Some1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the evidence Some1 has presented, that Dicklyon's accuracy when making MOS:CAPS related edits is a concurrent issue to the issue with automated and semi-automated edits. Both of these need to be addressed. With all due respect to the points that SMcCandlish has made, I don't find this to be over-reaching at all, as there is a demonstrated issue here going back several years. I also think the point that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent is pure hyperbole. This isn't a CTOPS broadly construed TBAN, where an editor is being topic banned from all aspects relating to a given topic. Nothing here would prevent Dicklyon from contributing to project space MOS discussions on the applicability of the relevant guidelines.
  There is also a little bit of wiggle room in the proposal as written, to allow for Dicklyon to make a limited number of reasonable requests for corrections on these lines in the talk and draft talk namespaces. All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Sideswipe9th and Some1. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Clarification question - does this proposal only apply to MOS policy and guideline pages or to all Wikipedia mainspace pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Butlerblog yes, the intent is to be both firm and reasonable. Firm by preventing them making the types of edits that are the reason they've been brought here and protecting the project from the collateral damage, reasonable by allowing them to still make the types of edits that are not problematic and by making it as clear as possible what the ban covers and what it does not - as I wrote somewhere recently (possibly on my talk page) nobody benefits from topic bans that are vague and woolly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn there are three aspects to this proposed restriction. The first two, regarding capitalisation, explicitly apply only to the article and draft namespaces, there should be no MOS (or any other) policy or guideline pages in those namespaces. The third, related to piping of links, applies everywhere outside their user and user talk space. I can't think of a way that this restriction will impact their participation in project-space discussions of MOS-related policies or guidelines (they are explicitly permitted to add piped links to content they add, which includes replies in talk page discussions). I intentionally titled the section using the broad language used when the topic ban was first suggested, rather than the narrower topic ban actually proposed, but I'm now not convinced that was the right choice as I think some people might be reacting to the title rather than the actual proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think your point is well taken. As an additional note, if you go upthread and read Sideswipe's second paragraph, I think she points out well what the objective is. It's not to be jerkish and put DL in a corner to embarass him (and anyone who supported this that thinks that way should be ashamed of themselves). The purpose is to put up some guardrails, allow him to edit appropriately, and have a path to appealing to lift the TBAN altogether at some point in the future. TBANS are not intended to be forever. Only if the editor does it to themselves is that ever the case. At some point, it should be totally reasonable for him to appeal. If you look at his past incidents, that's exactly what happened with his previous indeff - he was granted a return under the standard offer, and then after a time was able to appeal the entire restriction and be restored to full editing (as well as having been given JWB access). The same can happen with this (should this end up as a TBAN - that obviously has yet to be determined). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the proposal above addresses most of this. This can always be revisited in the future if it turns out necessary. On Wikipedia, we tend to have our policies and guidelines (and sanctions) reflect a belief in the possibility of redemption. If someone makes a mistake and fixes that mistake, we typically move on unless/until a possible pattern emerges which may need addressing. In this case, th the "pattern" seems more a case of issues with the use of editing tools rather than the MOS in general. It doesn't seem liike they are intentionally violating the MOS, but rather are apparently making mistakes while trying to follow the MOS. - jc37 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I have disagreed with Dickylon in the past on proper capitalization, specifically for MLB related events, I do not believe that they are editing in bad faith as it pertains to the MOS. An outright ban doesn't seem justified. The issue is with the speed and carelessness, not the edits pertaining to the MOS itself. - Skipple ☎ 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - i could be mistaken, but i don't think anyone it really suggesting Dicklyon is editing in bad faith; the worst that can be said is that he is failing to read the room and pushing through sometimes questionable changes, on occasion by the speed of his editing which creates a fait accompli, on occasion by repetitive arguing or changes. This ban should change that. Though i don't believe the other proposal i support should have a time limit, i am not at all averse to this one being limited to six months or, certainly, being appealable at that time. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support As Some1 handily collated, this has been a problem for years and years. The automated editing just makes it more problematic, but the behaviors have not substantially improved; anyone who gets blocked for socking over tiny MoS issues clearly has a value system at odds with the project at large. It's better for everyone if they are not involved in what is clearly an area they cannot edit constructively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• I support in principle but the scope of the restriction leaves something to be desired. There are too many caveats which make it unworkable; an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots debating whether something was a violation and an unscrupulous opponent could drag Dicklyon here for inadvertent technical breaches. Hopefully Dicklyon won't have as many problems with opening an edit window and typing in text as he does with automation. Or, TLDR: see WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would think that an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots on something clearly technical or ridiculous is going to end up boomeranging themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would greatly appreciate more detail on your thoughts regarding too many caveats which make it unworkable as I've tried to word the proposal in away to make it as clear as possible which edits count and which don't, disallowing the problematic stuff but allowing the non-problematic. With any restriction of this nature there is always going to be a need for some level of interpretation (other than something totally ridiculous like a ban from changing the capitalisation of any word in any circumstances), and at some point we have to trust that those enforcing a topic ban will be reasonable. As I note the first "this does not apply to" line isn't the greatest phrasing the project has ever seen, but I still can't think of anything better that allows them to change their own work (we do not expect perfection), the limit on that being while they are the most recent person to edit the page is to avoid OWNERSHIP issues or arguments about what is and isn't their own work if someone changes part of it (e.g. paragraph, sentence or word-level). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support - After reading and re-reading most of the support and oppose positions, I am supporting for mostly the same reasons as Sideswipe pointed out above: All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is far too restrictive as proposed. I mean, a blanket ban on this? Just block him at that point, because I am struggling to see how Dicklyon could possibly edit constructively in mainspace while effectively unable to edit wikilinks; you wouldn't get very far trying to improve an article while having to grovel and beg someone to change a wikilink or an evident miscapitalization. Now if this were a ban on mass edits of this kind (if one could even define mass in this context), then that's something I could probably get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  As has happened in the past, editors coming in late to this have far too much to wade through, give it only a cursory glance, and thus misread what the proposal actually says. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think I was referring to what you were talking about regarding the changing of the piping of links, as I imagine it would come up frequently if, for example, attempting to improve an article to GA, but if I misunderstood feel free to disregard that portion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hey mr. deputy dog, wait Just a darn Minute (if passed Dicklyon couldn't fix that sentence). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Correct (unless it was part of a larger content edit involving that sentence or it was that way as the result of obvious vandalism), but he could ask someone else to fix it. However, I don't understand your point? We don't topic propose topic bans for people randomly, and the rationale for proposing this one has been explained at length and is the result of many years worth of disruption. Yes, there will be some things that are incorrect that the person topic banned will not be able to fix, but that's true of every topic ban (e.g. someone topic banned from American politics would be unable to fix the capitalisation of that sentence in a biography of a US politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  You need to clarify that this is a comment and not a !vote in addition to your opposition already noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly insults to the prospective closer and prejudging the close are both inappropriate, and the rest of the comments don't seem to bear any relation to the proposal or the background to it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose As I said above, it seems to me, as a non-involved editor, that removing Dick's semi-automated editing permissions will adequately prevent the harmful practices that had lead to these complaints being raised. A MoS topic ban is overly broad, will needlessly cripple his ability to contribute to the site, and open him up to tendentious attacks by editors with an axe to grind. Based on what I read in this discussion, it did seem to me that some of the participants had jumped on just to see an old personal enemy taken down, which I find extremely distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Oknazevad (or anyone else) please feel free to rename the section to reflect the scope of the proposal (rather than the prior discussion). I can't immediately come up with something that is reasonably concise, doesn't come across as trying to unduly sway the discussion and doesn't have all the same problems of sounding overbroad if you don't read the details (e.g. "topic ban from capitalisation"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Butterfly and wheel at the moment, although without prejudice to this being revised if the above sanction proves not to have worked in, say, six months. SN54129 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's healthy debate above on whether the error rate tied to semi-automated editing is too high, but I don't think we can say it's too high for manual editing. I would describe very few editors here as "anti-MOS", but there is widespread opposition to decapitalization, even when it's obviously supported by MOS:CAPS. Subject-mater-focused editors frequently see Dicklyon begin work in their topic area and challenge this regular copyediting, and we end up with a long ANI thread. Above, these recent-ish no-consensus threads are cited as evidence in support of the restriction, but I see them as a sign that this is a matter where editors commonly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: It sticks in my craw to type this, but. See, we've clashed a number of times. I strongly believe that Dicklyon's anti-capitalization crusade borders on the abusive, that he's way way offbase in his curious belief that MOS overrides how proper usage has been defined for decades by institutions and in the media, and I wonder who the hell decided that MOS:CAPS negated style manuals around the world. But we need more for a TBAN than that, and however much I disagree with his stance, I can't support one without solid evidence that he's trampling policy. Passionately advocating an unpopular stance is not in of itself a policy violation. A ban on him using automated tools in his crusade is valid. This is not. Ravenswing 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If somebody forgets to capitalize "Smith" in "Adam Smith", it makes no sense to prohibit this user from making that fix. If the issue is largely related to the use of automated/semi-automated editing, and we're imposing a ban on that, then I see no issue with the user making thoughtful decisions as to when to manually make these fixes. We want to encourage the editor to put thought into this sort of stuff rather than just doing it en masse; we should let the sanction be narrowly tailored towards the disruption (i.e. editing en masse without checking for false positives) while leaving him enough room to contribute positively (i.e. fixing individual typos manually after evaluating whether or not it's actually a typo). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as as far as I can see they're not making edits against MOS.... they're just making careless edits..., My other concern is that if Dicklyon is MOS-topicbanned then they would only move to something else and would find themselves here again. Simple solution = revoke semi-automated permissions and ban them from using any semi automated tool, Banning them from manually fixing articles achieves nothing as like I say they're not going against MOS specifically. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose because I don't entirely understand what this restriction will do, or why it is necessary in addition to a prohibition against semi-automated editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This user's edits changing capitalisation appear to be in support of policies and guidelines. We get far too many editors who think that "their topic" is so important that the syntactic rules for capitalisation in English should be overridden and Semantic Rules Based on Obvious Importance Should be Used Instead. Dicklyon does very good work in defending us against such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the discussion above will solve the problem, hopefully. They will surely be able to have a smaller error rate with manual editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose just because that’s an extremely weird thing to topic ban someone from. It’s a lot harder to avoid a specific type of maintenance editing than something like “GENSEX, broadly construed”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Case fixes

Lacking JWB access, I've done only about 1000 case fix edits in the last week. I'd appreciate it if someone would look at a few of my contribs and say if some of those represent the "drive-by recapitalisation and repiping" that T seeks to ban me from. There are certainly some that don't change the displayed article text, but do have a positive effect in removing miscapitalized redirects from the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. The last time we discussed this, there was not a consensus that working on this was a bad idea, though some editors failed to see the value of it. Check the history there, to see that I have fixed the majority of the reported errors (from over 500 linked miscapitalized redirects to only 137). Making further progress will be slower without JWB, but I can live with that, especially if someone with AWB or JWB can help on the "long end", which is where I was working with JWB when I messed up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Good job. Hopefully you can use the tools again. As you know, the benefits of manual casing runs include the increased overview of both the encyclopedia and the subject matters. I case run on many words, sometimes into the thousands of edits, and have absorbed a great deal of information doing that (although I certainly can't say I remember a great percentage of it you get some good bits now and then). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon, your post only gives me greater concern. Removing things from database reports is not a useful thing to do for its own sake, and doing so while introducing other errors actually has a negative effect. I'm all for stylistic consistency between articles but it's not an emergency that justifies leaving an article in a worse state than you found it in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. Notice how I said "I messed up". I didn't say I thought that was OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If that's useful work, then great. But truthfully, your editing history of the last few days could be summarily discarded as you obviously know you're under scrutiny right now. It's more important what you do when no one is paying attention, or when you think no one is paying attention. If the real issue truly was just carelessness and speed with semi-automated editing, then that will become evident over time, not just a couple of days. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I always edit like people are paying attention. Here I'm just pointing out the type of edits that Thryduulf thinks I should be banned from. Or to inquire what he's talking about, if not these kinds of primarily capitalization changes that often affect piping. His ban proposal had little or nothing to do with mistakes and speed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (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.

Jaikumar Linga Balija

• Jaikumar Linga Balija (talk · contribs · logs)

A new editor is repeatedly creating problematic articles in mainspace. These articles have consistent problems, including being non-english, being entirely copied from public domain sources, or simply being copies of other pages they have been creating. Other editors have drafitified most of these articles, but the editor still re-creates them in mainspace. I have tried to reach out via their talk page, to no response. I'm not even sure if they speak english, considering that it is impossible to start a dialogue with them. StartOkayStop (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The non-Latin script is Tamil. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've had the same trouble as User:StartOkayStop: editor JLB has tried several times to create an article on a subcaste. When one of the attempts at was prodded for lack of references, I expanded it a bit and the resulting stub can be found at Linga Balija. I then pinged the creator at their user talk, and asked them to expand that with references. This was ignored, and they continued creating CFORKs at variant titles, mostly consisting of long pastes from an out-of-copyright book containing some paragraphs on the caste. Unclear whether this is stubbornness about having their preferred version, or a WP:CIR problem as StartOkayStop suggests. They've also tried a few times to create a CFORK on Kapu (caste), in Tamil. These have been draftified and deleted. Wikishovel (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Same editor has just recreated Linga Balija (Caste), that CFORK of Linga Balija, pasted from Draft:Linga Balija (Caste). User:Citadeol has redirected it the draft, User:CycloneYoris has requested speedy deletion, and I've requested salting. Could admins please advise if this should be redirected instead to Linga Balija, and EC-protected? Wikishovel (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why this user is constantly trying to re-create the same article they created at Linga Balija? Seems that CIR issues are more than evident, since they've also ignored every single warning posted on their talkpage. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition, per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, insufficient (or absent) explanations for edits can be legitimately perceived as incivility. A block to prevent further disruption seems in order. WaggersTALK 11:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be in support of this. It does seem like there are some WP:CIR issues going on here and the editor's lack of response or acknowledgement to any messages certainly seems to indicate it. A block could act as a way to try and get the user to respond, although I doubt they will considering their lack of responses so far. I don't think salting of the specific pages, as another editor has suggested, is necessary because of the specificity of the situation. StartOkayStop (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, here's Linga Balija (Caste) again. A thought occurs to me: a while back, an admin told me that there's a Wikipedia mobile app, which doesn't display new user talk page posts, so new editors on mobile are unaware of why they're getting reverted. How can we check whether JLB is using that app to edit? Is admin access to logs required? That might explain the apparent incivility. Wikishovel (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It says so in their edit history "Mobile edit". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Their edit history is a mix, and as their last non-mobile edit was on the 11th, with the warnings at their user talk already piling up, we can probably rule that out as the sole problem. Wikishovel (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This user has yet again recreated a page that has been speedy deleted as an A10 of Kapu (caste). Seeing that they have not responded to the many warnings on their talk page, this user at the very least needs a p-block from article space until they can address these concerns. That, or these recreated articles should be salted. The Night Watch (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Editor possibly skirting an indefinite GS/Uyghur topic ban?

Tankpiggy18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely topic-banned -- see the logs at WP:GS/UYGHUR -- yet this edit looks like an attempt to skirt the topic ban. Amigao (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the diff. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep that looks like its within the topic area and the ban is "broadly construed" so there isn't any wiggle room. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty straightforward violation. Blocked for a week. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? I'm seriously struggling to see why this account wasn't indeffed as WP:NOTHERE a long time ago. Their edits almost entirely seem to consist of unsourced POV pushing and disruption. Just look at some of their edits:

• Completely unsourced attempt to blame Ukraine for an attack [55]
• Completely unsourced claim that a political orginisation includes "far right" members [56]
• Completely unsourced labelling of the US as a totalitarian regime [57]
• More completely unsourced pov pushing [58]
• Deletion of sourced content purely on the basis that they don't like it [59]
• Addition of square quotes around "russian agression" [60]
• Misrepresentation of the cited source [61]. The source argues that Fang was innocent and was forced to issue an apology.
• Spot the bias: [62] [63] [64]
• Whitewashing [65] [66]
• [67] masses of sources in 1946 Romanian general election show this edit summary is not true.

And on and on it goes. I genuinely cannot find a single edit where they have cited a source for any of their claims. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Fang, Chait is a columnist and his words should not be used as statements of fact, so that edit is probably net-positive (although still poorly-sourced either way). A few other of these are of at least marginal merit (e.g. Flophouse should cite Jencks directly, not a random National Review blog post about it; but removal was overkill). But I agree that, overall, this account is being used to whitewash claims about authoritarian regimes, on the basis of personal opinion rather than reliable sources. In some cases I'd tend toward an only warning, but given the username, I'm not assuming a huge amount of good faith. @Extraordinary Writ: Would you object to me bumping this to indef? I'd note that the first week of the block remains a GS action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead, Tamzin—I didn't look too far beyond the t-ban violation, so if there are more problems an indef is fine by me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Editor demanding to approve edits to a page

• University of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RetroTetra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past week or so, user B3251 has been making small changes and adding cleanup tags to the University of New Brunswick article. They've been editing the page intermittently since May of this year, but made a flurry of edits recently which seem to have drawn the attention of new user RetroTetra. RetroTetra seems to be upset that in the midst of B3251's editing, a different editor changed the article's assessment from B-class to C-class (originally assessed in 2007).

RetroTetra left a message for B3251 (see Special:Permalink/1174864255#Stop vandalising the University of New Brunswick page) which was, let's say, less than civil. When B3251 declined to revert their edits, RetroTetra removed some of the cleanup tags, and B3251 reverted. RetroTetra removed the tags again and was reverted again. These two reverts are RetroTetra's entire contribution history on this article.

RetroTetra then left messages on my talk page and on Bearcat's user talk asking for a "senior admin" to intervene. Bearcat removed the message and didn't get involved, while I decided to review the edits. I found that the tags were reasonable, and set about addressing most of them, and made a few improvements (IMO) myself; I also removed some that I thought were excessive or unnecessary. I then suggested on the article's talk page that the assessments are really meaningless but offered to help if the editors were interested in a GA drive, and left that along with one of my usual "play nice and don't edit war" comments. RetroTetra responded to my message insisting that all of the edits must be reverted wholesale before they would discuss anything, which I declined to do. I offered to review any issue they had if they would identify what it was, but they responded only by citing the consensus policy, again demanding to revert all changes and discuss each one individually. I declined again, repeating my invitation for them to point out any particular issue they wanted to discuss, and also started a new discussion about one of the remaining cleanup tags, in which I also pinged them specifically with an invitation for their feedback.

RetroTetra's response to those invitations to comment was yet another demand to mass-revert, this time quoting this principle from an Arbcom case on medicine, which reads: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." RetroTetra bolded the last two sentences, while I believe it's the first sentence that's pertinent here as I've repeatedly tried to engage in discussion but RetroTetra has refused. In exasperation that they were still demanding to personally approve all of the changes, I finally just said "no" and went back to working on other things. They've responded this morning with an obtuse attack on my integrity, and still haven't said what their issue is with any content in the article.

I'm posting here for a sanity check. I find RetroTetra's behaviour patently absurd, but am I in the wrong here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here — as Ivanvector notes, I didn't get involved in the dispute — but I did want to note that the principal reason I opted to remove the intervention request from my talk page was that after RetroTetra posted it, but before I had made any sort of attempt to step in, B3251 also posted to my talk page to essentially start an argument with RetroTetra by refuting their claims. So I kiboshed that because I really wasn't interested in having my talk page turn into a slapfight between two other editors about an issue that didn't have anything to do with me. I know Ivanvector knows that already and isn't suggesting that I did anything wrong, but I just wanted to provide that added context for the benefit of any other outside admins who decide to look into this. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think your concern makes sense. Though I don't think that enough has happened here for it to be more than a conduct dispute, I do absolutely think it's broadly inappropriate to (as RetroTetra has done) mass-revert otherwise uncontroversial edits based solely on the argument that they need to get consensus. Consensus is presumed for all edits and while it only takes one objection to breach that presumption, you do still need a specific objection. If the edit was previously uncontroversial, that objection can't be "you need to get consensus before making that edit", because they don't. Otherwise we end up with WP:OWN / WP:STONEWALL issues. RetroTetra needs to give at least some indication of what they find objectionable about those edits, or drop the issue. And I think that our policies could perhaps be clearer about encouraging people to focus on article content, not on meta-discussions about who has consensus. If an editor seems to constantly be trying to avoid being "pinned down" into stating an actionable objection by instead prevaricating about consensus, that does IMHO eventually rise to the point of being a conduct issue due to OWN / STONEWALL concerns - though again, this dispute was short enough so far that I don't think anything needs to be done beyond getting RetroTetra to state their objection clearly and avoid it being like pulling teeth in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Not too sure what I can add that'll be of any value to this discussion, but I'll offer my comments on here. Firstly I'd like to acknowledge that I have a WP:COI with the article in question, the University of New Brunswick (UNB), because I've been a first-year undergraduate student ever since my first term started just over a week ago. You can see my disclaimer here. I've made various edits to the article before and after I started my term at UNB, and I've made a vow to myself to assume good faith through not adding original research and maintaining a Neutral point of view. I have no intentions on attempting to promote UNB, I fully intend nothing more than to do what I can to improve the article because it is, unarguably, pretty messy. I invite anyone, if they would like, to look at my edits.

As @Ivanvector mentioned, I've been off-and-on making improvements to the University of New Brunswick article for quite some time now (fixing some problems, adding content) as well as adding improvement tags, mostly as a reminder for myself in the future whenever I'd like to try and tackle it. I can admit, however, that I am quite inexperienced when it comes to adding improvement templates so I sometimes tend to overuse them. I sent the article to a cleanup guild as an attempt to get help fixing mostly primary sources (though I can see now that certain topics such as this may need more primary sources than usual) & seeing how the article could be cleaned up or rearranged to improve it. RetroTetra, a complete outsider, seemed to have came out of nowhere and removed all the templates while, in the edit reason, stating that I had been “repeatedly told by others to stop labeling/requesting extra sources for one well-established article of many decades”. I was never told by anyone to stop doing anything (which is nothing more than just trying to make improvements) so this left me confused, and, assuming it was just a troll edit (especially given the lack of edits they have), I reverted their edit and sent them a warning on their talk page. Not sure if it was warranted, but given the circumstances that's how I viewed it as.

RetroTetra proceeded to retaliate as shown here, here and here, accusing me of vandalism, "taking revenge on UNB for failing a class or getting expelled" and, due to the article's B-Status at the time, seemingly felt as if this meant the article could be free from errors.

I won't add on to this as to not overlap what Ivanvector said, but seeing the way RetroTetra has responded to both myself and Ivanvector, it seems as if they resort to demands/accusations if they cannot get what they want. I'd like to continue to make improvements to the article in question, but I would also not like to remain hesitant due to RetroTetra wanting myself and others to conform to what they want. Lastly, I'd like to apologize to @Bearcat for engaging in an argument in your talk page; it was definitely not the most mature thing to do, and I definitely made an emotional decision to respond to them because I felt as if I had to defend myself from RetroTetra's strange accusations, but going forward I'll keep in mind to lay it off and wait. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Spurious closures, redux

I wish the original report hadn't been closed so quickly. Lots of block evasion here, now by 47.21.141.210 (talk · contribs) 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

To what are you referring? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparently_spurious_closures_of_AfD_discussions although @Drmies took care of this one too. Star Mississippi 01:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Long term vandalism and political pov pushing by 24.185.252.158

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.

---

24.185.252.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a history of making unsourced BLP claims that such as this and this without heeding warnings on their talk page but now vandalising unrelated articles such as this to make political pot shots 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:E068:1CC2:2E99:9E73 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This IP editor has been violating BLP policy at least since February, and a previous block did not change the misconduct. Accordingly, I have blocked them for six months. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (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.

Kalapaharindia

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:Kalapaharindia created their account in 2016. After making a dozen edits, all of their contributions since have been hoaxes and attack pages: Mittir Masi, Nirmalya Sengupta, Priyam Sengupta, and now Arghya Roychowdhury. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Wikishovel (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Kalapaharindia as not here to build the encyclopedia. The now deleted Arghya Roychowdhury was a vile and contemptible attack page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2023 (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.

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

• Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• 202.134.8.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The article Kalki Avatar and Muhammad was recently cut down to a redirect following a very contentious AFD. An IP editor then appealed to Deletion Review, which was also contentious, but the quasi-deletion was endorsed, and the IP was blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Another IP editor has recreated another version of an article on the book and is edit-warring to restore the article. I request semi-protection of the title. The IP has also filed another DRV, which is tendentious. If the IP is in good faith, they can develop a draft and submit it for review, and the reviewer can compare the draft against the deleted article. But I don't think that the IP is in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is victim of South Asian sectarian editing's opposition and lot of meatpuppeting and the Afd was also done without proper evaluation before the closing time (closing date was 02:47, 14 August according to the 3rd relist in 02:47, 7 August 2023 by User:Liz but the closing admin User:Drmies closed the discussion in 10 august, 12:35, 10 august, 3 days 14 hours 12 minutes before the deadline) but according to all the guidelines of wikipedia, it clearly meets the notibility. The references undoubtedly meets the solid notibility, except only few among 68 references. If you want a source analysis of 68 references, till noe I can give you. 202.134.8.129 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock

The AfD went for twenty-four days, which is anything other than being "done in a hurry" -- that's an absurd charge. Don't mind me, the IP changed their phrasing while I was typing. A number of experienced editors determined that the "68" references were threadbare refbombing, and did not provide WP:SIGCOV to the subject. (I'm also struck by the inexperience of the Keep proponents, only one who had more than two thousand edits.) The endorse was strongly upheld. That you don't personally like the outcome is as may be, but this is a settled matter that we're not going to revisit for no better reason than it sticks in your craw. Ravenswing 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ravenswing, Brother, the south asian topics are not similar to the other common cases of wikipedia, there is a heavy sectarianism, and they are also "recruited", they fiercely pushes point of view and work by team and also do the "cleverest" sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting. I am just giving you only one example, see the edit history of the article List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and identify what has been removed in the name of debunked version and how many times inspite of solidity of notibility of the whole contents, also see the talk page Talk:List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and the clash between the editors then you can understand. A sector of south asian editors have a habit that, if they understand they are loosing the edit they instantly gives the opponent a Template:Ds/alert ([68], [69] [70] there are many more) to horrify them, they also remove the edits comments or edits of other editors which can flash their real face, deliberately says non-trivial mentions as passing mentions if edit goes against their interest, I can give a lot of other habits which are not common to other common wikipedians. This are happening because of this circumstances ([71] [72]) now for the recent past decades regularly happening in the center of South Asia. They hate to co-exist with harmony, while mutual tolerant co existance can save the whole community. So think and see the topic deeply and seriously than other issues. I piled references only because so that the opponent can never avoid or deny the notibility which they always did before. I could give source analysis but giving it to 68 takes too mutch time while being busy in job and daily life but the afd was closed before the deadline I planned to give a source analysis. And this topic is a very hot issue in South Asian interfaith dialogues and also in religious politics, that's why opponents recruited to hide the topic. Another matter is that these editors tells lie to such an extent that many people feel frightened to face them, the recently returned former admin User:A. B. has already understood the matter by such an unexpected incident, I think he/she will always remember what happened. I think the community should concern all these matters seriously on south asian topics from now on and take necessary steps. And the articles deletion cauese was also that the notability of the authour was established by another afd after the closing of the afd, otherwise there would be never too much cheos to establish the endorsement of the article. If it wouldn't be any south asian topic, there would be never so much like this to delete the same article, and then the article would easily retained without much as what happened here. The point is more important because, the whole discussion was "as far as possible fabricatedly" created by a sector to seduce another sector, but after when the targated sector became seduced and completed giving them service, the seducer party started saying that this is the propaganda of the seduced, we never tried to seduce them, this is the defence vs. offence game of the "respective" sectarians which is seen to be always played by them regularly in every age, which the respective sector calls "the inclusive, liberal and absorbing "universal"" ideology of themselves, which they started from till they migrated to south asia from another place thousands of years ago and forcfully taken the places from the contemporary local residents, whom they call now "the low caste" also being based on the "colour of their skin". 202.134.8.129 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock

The IP is correct about the dynamics of the AfD. It was one of my most unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia in 15+ years. Lots of WP:SEALION and what looked like coordinated editing. I was taken to WP:ANI.

I don’t live in South Asia and I don’t have a dog in its sectarian fights. I just showed up at an AfD that had been floundering through relisting and got involved to be a good Wikipedia citizen.

I spent several hours on a long source analysis. It was so long I put it on the AfD talk page. I only got through about 25% of the 68 but 2 established notability to my satisfaction. I’m sure there are more useful refs in the remaining 75%; I just didn’t want to waste any more of my life.

I did not recommend “keeping”however, but rather merging to the author’s article. I disagreed with the admin’s close but I consider it a settled matter, especially after the first DRV. Win some, lose some.

As I see it, the “delete” crowd was very ferocious and organized. They know all our processes and game the system. Only a very well established editor can oppose them for long without getting sanctioned for some reason. By now, most of their opposition has been marginalized. They don’t know how to work the Wikipedia system so the system works them.

I don’t care much about the book but I am very troubled about the broader dynamics it unveiled. The broader community needs to be aware of what’s happening with coordinated editing that’s possibly state-sponsored.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Too many false claims from someone who is not willing to recall being a WP:1AM at the WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which barely involved any participants from the AfD. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Block 202.134.8.129 is a ban evading IP proxy abusing sock. He is evading his existing ban on 202.134.10.130 and 202.134.10.141. Kindly block this IP too. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion (I think): Talk:Muhammad#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_30_July_2023 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

He is now blocked. This thread can be closed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

An inconvenient truth: the IP is blocked but I’m not. I don’t think the thread is ready to be closed, Aman.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel - Haven't you learned anything yet from the last episode? Even if this WP:ANI thread is ready to be closed, and even if the DRV is ready to be closed, it wasn't ready to be closed by an involved editor, and you are an involved editor as the nominator of the contentious AFD. Wny are you being so aggressive to close this case? Are you trying to prove that the IP's rant was mostly correct, or are you only trying to prove that User:A. B.'s concerns about coordinated editing are well taken? Why are you in such a hurry? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Where I have closed this ANI thread at all? I only suggested closing because your problem was solved and we are not supposed to waste on a banned sock. As for the laughable claim of coordinated editing, we all can see that A.B. is the one who is coordinating with the banned sock and has already ignored my query to reveal the name of the account with which the banned sock emailed him. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Aman, I may privately forward the email I received to ArbCom. I will not discuss it on my talk page in response to your post there. It does not immediately concern the article discussed above.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid getting dragged back into this. The community has a growing problem here and I am not in a position to take it on by myself. I'm happy to help if some other editors and admins have my back and will share the workload but I have not felt that was the case during the AfD or its aftermath.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel - You ask where you have closed the ANI thread. You haven't closed the ANI thread. You have closed the DRV thread, but that was an involved closure. Why are you in such a hurry to close the DRV thread? You say that my problem has been solved. The sock wasn't "my" problem, but the community's problem, and that problem has been solved, and you are creating a new problem. If you have evidence that User:A. B. is coordinating with the banned editor, please either provide that evidence here, or send it to ArbCom. I see that the banned editor was ranting about coordinated editing of South Asian articles, and that A. B. has raised a reasonably stated concern about coordinated editing of South Asian articles. If you do not have evidence of coordination between A. B. and the banned editor, please do not cast aspersions. Why are you in such a hurry to get the DRV closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You are now just repeating yourself without even reading what even reading what I had said. Your new questions were already covered in my response above with my words that "we are not supposed to waste on a banned sock" that's why its better to close every request made by the sock and I also said "we all can see that A.B. is the one who is coordinating with the banned sock and has already ignored my query to reveal the name of the account with which the banned sock emailed him" which proves coordinated editing between A.B. and the banned sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk)

It most certainly does not "prove" anything of the sort, other than that your repeated "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions is a poor look. I, for one, am a neutral editor who isn't among the "we can all see" brigade you blithely presuppose, nor do I agree that you posing A.B. hostile, loaded questions either imposes on him an onus to respond to you, or that him not doing so is a prima facie admission of guilt. Ravenswing 07:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Why he is hosting a banned sock on his talk page and allowing him to email but refusing to share the account's name? It is textbook definition of "coordinated editing" and that too with a banned sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Aman, go ask ArbCom for the emails.

It’s hard to coordinate editing when ArbCom’s copied on the correspondence.

As for hosting banned users on my talk page: your comments to me, the Bangladeshi IP’s comments, others’ comments are all there for anyone here to to read. I don’t delete stuff (except routine, automated announcements like the Signpost).

• User talk:A. B.

No need to go through the talk page history edit-by-edit to see what’s been said.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That does not even answer my question. The question is that why you don't just revert and ignore the sock instead of hosting him your talk page? You are the one who suggested him to email you.[73] I am only saying this because you should be the last person to talk about "coordinated editing" when all you have is your disappointment over an AFD and a DRV[74] that went against you. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not "hosting".

I don't delete human editors' comments from my user talk page, whether I approve of them or not. Whether they're flattering or accusatory. Go through 18 years of archives and you'll see it all.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bangladeshi IP asked to send me a message. In response, I told him he could use the Wikipedia system; I would not use any other. The diff you just posted (at 14:13 UTC) clearly shows I did not invite a message.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You told him that he can email you. That was the point. Now instead of reporting him, you talk to him even after knowing he is a banned sock and you continue conversation with him until he is blocked and comes back with a new IP sock.[75][76] It is hosting and contradicts WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not reply to the sender. I simply forwarded their material to ArbCom to deal with as they see fit.

Go talk to ArbCom about what I sent them.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m fed up with Aman.kumar.goel and this sort of stuff. In the last month he’s attacked neutral editors such as Cryptic and myself while being uncivil to others who question him (see above). All in defense of some agenda, not Wikipedia.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What agenda is that? I get that from disruptive editors so you are not even new with this laughable view. You are free to walk away from this entire matter. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SEALION, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ASPERSIONS

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unconvincing wikilawyering. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Could an admin put a stop to Aman.kumar.goel badgering A. B. here on the basis of an essay? Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Take that "essay" (I am not aware of which one) to AfD if you have a problem with it instead of falsifying my comments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an essay. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to follow it. If you have a problem with it then AfD is thataway. That said, I linked it only one time against my long conversation with A.B., as such you have falsified my comments my terming it as "badgering A.B. here on the basis of an essay". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel - In case you don't know the difference between article space and project space, essays are deleted at MFD, not at AFD. But maybe you can't be worried about details. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Aman, Schazjmd is correct. This is the boxed notice at the top of Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition:

• "Despite repeated discussion about making this essay a guideline, it is originally and fundamentally an essay explaining some users' opinions or actions. It needs neither implementation nor consensus as an essay."

You can open a request for comment to change this to a guideline.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Who is saying this is not an essay? I am only rejecting the nonsensical assertion that I am "badgering A.B. here on the basis of an essay".

If you want to wikilawyer in opposition to WP:DENY then go read WP:BMB and note that it is not an essay. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

See here User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#List of converts, the conversation between User:Black Kite and Aman and also the edit history. I commented about reference fromm CNN video of self submission of conversion of A. R. Rahman, which he deleted saying it as rv. I think community should aware of the people who game the system, and the people who game the system, the community should punish them sufficiently so that they feel fear to game with the system of the world's largest online encyclopedia and with the editors who are comparatively " honest" than them and do not know how to defend their gameplay with the system. And I also suspect User:Editorkamran may be a sockpuppet of Aman. Deepmason (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock

Obvious sock is obvious. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this editor is a sockpuppet, maybe not. Your edits still bear examination.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

For other who haven't seen this before, here is a history of 3 investigations (2020 - 2023) of Aman.kumar.goel and others at:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive

There has never been any sock puppetry found but two CU staff (Tamzin and GeneralNotability) raised concerns about coordinated off-wiki editing.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Citing failed SPIs against me is not going to work for you.

Just because you are evidently engaging in coordinated editing with the banned sock, you don't get to falsify history of other editors. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom has the same emails. Are they in on this, too?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I am only talking about you here, not any "ArbCom".

When you know you cannot stand for yourself, you need to stop cooking up a storm. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• • I have blocked Planethabitat and Deepmason as socks of the same user, created to evade existing blocks. No comment on any connection to any IPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

    Update: received brief email several hours ago confirming ArbCom holds the correspondence.

    --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

DENY, and Personal Attacks

On being told that WP:DENY is an essay, User:Aman.kumar.goel wrote: Editors are supposed to follow it. Where does a policy or guideline say that users are supposed to follow it? On the one hand, denying recognition to some sorts of miscreants, especially trolls, is a good idea, and it is also folk wisdom of the Internet. So it is usually a good idea to follow it, but, like most folk wisdom, requires common sense. But it is not a guideline, and there is no guideline that says that editors should follow it. I haven't read the history of the essay, but I would guess that one reason it has not been made into a guideline or policy is that there are different concepts of what should be done to deny recognition of trolls and others (because it is folk wisdom requiring common sense), and that making it into a guideline would result in even more stupid contentious arguments than this one, as more editors tried to use it as a cudgel. AKG's statement that editors are supposed to follow it is indeed badgering A.B. here on the basis of an essay. They can reasonably argue that it is their opinion that A.B. used poor judgment in encouraging the troll, but that is not what AKG is saying. On the other hand, No Personal Attacks is a policy, and the rule against casting aspersions is an ArbCom principle implementing that policy. AKG does have a plausible case that User:A. B. is using poor judgment in receiving messages from a blocked troll, but there is also a plausible case that they are using good judgment in trying to getting information to ArbCom about the troll. I think that they have used poor judgment, but that is only my opinion, and I think that the conduct of AKG is far worse. AKG is casting aspersions that A.B. is engaged in coordinated editing with the troll. By making that claim repeatedly, they are engaging in a personal attack.

User:A. B. - Do Not Feed the Troll.

User:Aman.kumar.goel, you still haven't justified an involved close of the DRV. Why were and are you in such a hurry, when there are other editors who didn't nominate the book for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• And whether or not A.B. has used poor judgment in dealing with the troll, what in the merry hell is accomplished by User:Aman.kumar.goel hammering on that again, and again, and again, and again? If there is an official policy explicitly forbidding editors from communicating with blocked editors, perhaps someone could show us a link, but in the meantime, as far as I know, AKG is neither an admin nor ArbCom's traffic cop, and their standing for demanding that AB account for their actions differs not one clipped copper from any other editor's. The time has long since past for AKG to drop the damn stick, and failing that, we're approaching IBAN country. Ravenswing 04:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am not the one who invited A.B. to comment here. He jumped here when the thread was already resolved and there was nothing to see here.[77] He is the one who is always poking the bear with his absurd allegations of coordinated editing despite ending up as WP:1AM over the very same dispute as visible at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.

  Neither I am the one escalating this already resolved dispute where now I am being asked why I made this perfect edit despite having explained it sufficiently that we are not supposed to waste time on filings of a banned sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Robert:

• 202.134.10.130 came on page and thanked me for my edits at the AfD. After some polite back and forth, I gave him advice on how to edit Wikipedia in a hostile environment while he scrupulous met or exceeded all our behavioral guidelines. I told him if he had private material to send it to ArbCom. I tried to be polite and helpful. I avoided religious discussion.
• Several days later, 202.134.8.129 asks for my contact information. I declined to give him my private information and pointed him towards "Email this user". He sends me stuff and I send it to ArbCom. What's the problem with these actions?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Banned editors are not allowed to edit at all thus you shouldn't respond to such banned users. Though if I were you, I would have reverted and reported the sock right away but you can at least ignore the sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ravenswing, all this abuse has occurred on pages involving interaction between Islam and Hinduism, specifically a controversial Indian academic. This is clearly covered by the Arbitration rules on South Asian topics broadly construed. Furthermore, previous incidents he's been involved with all involved this area. I think a topic ban from that area would do more for Wikipedia and community peace than an interaction ban with me. Aman's been working up to this for a long time and this would be consistent with the South Asian topic rules.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What "abuse" are you talking about? Or this is yet another baseless allegation from you? First read why topic ban is imposed. It cannot be imposed only because you want to get rid of your opponent. See WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Good night everybody. I'll catch up with this in tomorrow.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime until tomorrow, these pages contain my interactions with Aman, associated editors and the two IPs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Page blocked for following WP:DENY, without warning, in contentious DRV
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• User talk:A. B.:
  • User talk:A. B.#Important notice (Aman)
  • User talk:A. B.#Don't (Aman)
  • User talk:A. B.#Love for you (202.134.10.130)
  • User talk:A. B.#Request (202.134.8.129)
• And, of course, the thoughtful exchanges above.

Enjoy reading. Some of that stuff is wild! Especially the Kalki Afd and the ANI page.

Good night,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Why you are always the one seeking sanctions against Aman.kumar.goel and never seeking a single sanction against the ban evading sock even though he is always contacting you while evading his existing ban? This is a clear-cut battleground mentality on your part. Dympies (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, and while I agree that AB likewise ought to drop the damn stick and walk away, why aren't you? Ravenswing 05:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RM closed prematurely by brand new zero-edit user

A brand new user with zero edits (prior to this RM close) just prematurely closed an RM discussion. I know I can revert it, but, as the nom, I’d rather an uninvolved admin take a look. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 04:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin, but this seems like a reasonable close. However, it is pretty suspicious. Probably a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This certainly looks like a WP:BADNAC to me, especially considering point 2 "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." But the thing that concerns me more is that the account Alexandre Fruta (talk · contribs · logs) was just created, and has only contributed to that discussion and no other edits (obviously going against point 3 of BADNAC). Also, the account is indef blocked from the Portugese Wikipedia for socking on the same article. Certainly seems likely that the same thing is happening here, and I would be tempted to check the CAs of other involved accounts in the discussion to see if something similar is going on. (I wasn't able to find if there was a sockmaster listed anywhere on the PT WP.) I'm not involved in that discussion, so I'm going to be bold and un-close this discussion which was clearly closed inappropriately. StartOkayStop (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I just blocked this account, along with a bunch of others, which are confirmed to one another and were being used inappropriately. I haven't looked at the close - certainly, this account should not have closed it, but I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether or not there is any point in reverting it and having it done properly. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to do so, else will have a second RM soon enough on the grounds of a sock close. It also clearly wasnt a SNOW close, given most votes would probably not have been considered valid. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably best reverted, despite the fact that it will undoubtedly be closed the same way when it ends, as the current name is his actual name. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up after protracted move vandal

I'm going through the latest mess created by repeated sockpuppeteer User:Anup Rajbanshi. This guy has a very weird behaviour. He keeps creating new sock accounts, and will immediately move tons of articles to random new locations (creating a huge mess in edit histories). In his latest sock venture (User:9kol28), he only moved redirects to new locations. He then logs out of the sock account, and starts editing the new redirect locations and thereby converting the sock-created redirect into an article on Nepalese provincial politics.

From what I gather, all past efforts to try to get him to understand that messing up edit histories creates a huge mess (and hours of unnecessary extra work for other editors), I propose that all the articles he creates through this sock/anon IP switching be deleted in the spirit of WP:DENY. I'll commence tagging articles for speedy, and I wanted to flag the issue here, in case there would be questions on the deletion drive (as, at first look, the anon IP account edits may seem quite harmless). --Soman (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems he's active on Commons as well, with plenty of violations of copyright material. See [78]. If anyone wants to raise the issue at Commons, much appreciated. --Soman (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

...and uses simple.wiki as his sandbox for editing, see User:12gokinmk, [79]. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Any edit that they make or new page they create can be reverted or deleted per WP:G5 and WP:BANREVERT, but of course that shouldn't be done for split histories. I'll see if something more can be done. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

BUT the redirects need to be restored, attribution is required for the original contributor. This is indeed a huge mess. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow this is a pile of spaghetti. firefly ( t · c ) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

These pages might have been moved by a sockpuppet but they don't fit the CSD G5 criteria because these pages were created by other editors and they should not be deleted. I've untagged a few but I don't think many (or any) are appropriate for CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The dilemma is that with the moves, new locations are created that serve as repositories for the sockpuppeteer. Few points,

1) The sockpuppeteer is not the usual disruptive vandal, but seems genuinely interested in article creation but is totally unwilling to play by the rules and seems unable commit to any sort of meaningful collaboration. There is, to my knowledge, no mea culpa or expression that he's willing to change behaviour. The behaviour to overwrite articles completely or make massive moves across hundreds of articles creates such massive mess. Today I found out he's behaving in the same manner on Commons, just look at the bizarre upload/revert pattern at File:Shiv Chandra Chaudhary (2).jpg (there are plenty of other similar examples on Commons).

2) The modus operandi of the latest detected sock account, User:9kol28, is moving redirects and then from an anon IP editing the redirect. For example take a look at Gayananda Mandal Gangai. By moving a completely unrelated redirect to the genuine article Maina Kumari Bhandari before 9kol28 gets detected as sock and banned, he creates a placeholder article title. This enables him to return to the redirect Gayananda Mandal Gangai and create a new article as an anon IP. From my side, we should delete the redirects to ensure that he can't just wait out that no-one notices and create articles as anon IP.

3) Now all of this is obviously complicated by the fact that in spite of the disruptive behaviour of the individual, virtually all of his intended article targets could easily pass WP:NPOL in terms of notability.

4) I think the action taken by Ivanvector at Indra Bahadur Angbo is the correct one, by reverting the pre-vandalism redirects back to their original location and deleting the redirect location created by the disruptive move. I apologize if the {db} template was not the best modality, but in all honesty I didn't really find something to use to tag articles precisely matching this someone unique method of sabotage against wikipedia.

5) Looking at the editing pattern and the claims of having produced hundreds of photographs of political office holders (most of them in a specific region), could this be a case of WP:PAID/WP:COI? I just find this whole pattern very strange and I struggle to find a good explanation. If it was a pathological OCD thing to populate all pages on a specific subset of politics, then I'd expect the editor to be more open to constructive critique. Again and again he wants to create certain articles at all cost, in total disregard of all types of inputs from other editors. And when blocked he tries to find a way to game the system to create the articles anyways. --Soman (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally I agree with both of you, in a way. I had to step away yesterday, but my approach for the few I did review has been to move the "new" page back to its former title, suppress the pagemove redirect per WP:PMRC#6/WP:G5 and overwrite also per WP:G5, and then revert to restore the original redirect. I only got through a handful but each one of the pages I reviewed were newly created by the vandal moving the page to that title, so there was no history needing to be preserved. I agree that the "new" pages are not eligible for WP:G5 because they have prior contribs. As for the sockmaster I made some range blocks yesterday that should slow them down, and also I think there's already an edit filter for this which may need to be tweaked or reactivated or something, I'll post at the noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: extend ACPERM to IP editors overwriting redirects. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Fig wright

Fig wright (talk · contribs) added a section to Queer theory starting "Since its earliest days, queer theory has been dogged by accusations that it is a vehicle for paedophile advocacy..." Several editors (including me) raised concerns about sourcing, original research, and due weight for some or all of the added content. Rather than responding to the substance of those issues and working toward a consensus version, Fig attacked the editors who raised concerns about the content as "disingenuous" and "not acting in good faith".[80]. They were warned about this behaviour on their talk page. Their response to those warnings has been to escalate their allegations, stating "this page is defenced by editors who don't want the most serious historic criticisms of queer theory to be read"[81], and "many of the critical-theory adjacent pages on Wikipedia are these days defended by a critical mass of sympathetic editors who will constantly remove such references and white-wash articles"[82]. In short, they seem unwilling or unable to work toward consensus on this issue without implying at every turn that anyone who disagrees with them is a pedophile apologist.--Trystan (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, as another involved editor. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, involved. This grew out of a content dispute at Queer theory regarding the question of addition of a new section by Fig wright on criticism of Queer theory for its alleged association with pedophilia, and subsequent removal of the content by four editors.

Fig wright (talk · contribs · logs) is a long-term editor with 1,771 live edits including ten article creations to their credit, and an editing pattern of a dozen or two edits per year since 2015. Because of this, I have been trying to give them a semi-new editor, WP:DONTBITE approach, despite their 2006 start. I do think there have been some behavioral problems recently that manifested at Talk:Queer theory, which are explained at their UTP. The most serious of these are doubling and tripling down on failure to assume good faith, failure to follow WP:DR and observe consensus, WP:ASPERSIONS (not mentioned at Talk, iirc), and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (also not mentioned). I believe that Fig wright is passionate about the topic, and is highly motivated and acting in good faith to bring content they believe is appropriate and needed to the attention of readers, and they cannot see any reason for anybody to oppose their well-intentioned edits other than dark, personal motivations. I wasn't quite ready to bring this here, hoping a collaborative approach would work, but it obviously hasn't with their most recent edit, tripling and quadrupling down in this POINTY edit (diff; note: loonnng diff—contains commentary, plus a long section of copied article text; easier to read after cosmetic adjustments in this permalink).

Given that last outburst, it seems likely that the disruptive behavior at the article has probably stopped, so perhaps there is no longer anything actionable here. Nevertheless, in order to promote collaborative editing in the future by this obviously capable editor, perhaps a word from an Admin at their UTP encouraging compliance with core behavioral policies (and content policies such as WP:EW) might help. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of veteran editor

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

---

Hello. I am IP editor 2001:1c06:19ca:d600:*. Early September 13th, I modified the lead of Untitled Grand Theft Auto game to say "the following September" instead of "in September". My edit was undone by User:Rhain. On the aforementioned editor's Talk page, I requested him to reconsider. The relevant dialogue has been archived at User talk:Rhain/2023 July–December § Untitled Grand Theft Auto game. As it shows, still on September 13th, I posted 07:03, he replied 07:30, I replied 07:39 with two questions. He did not reply, despite contributions and engagement elsewhere on Wikipedia. On September 17th, I once again posted on his Talk page, providing him another opportunity to communicate with me. I wrote: "I gather from your lack of response here, despite contributions and engagement elsewhere, that you feel indifferent. I'll wait another day, and then I'll re-add the content under the assumption you won't mind." Again, he did not reply, despite contributions and engagement elsewhere on Wikipedia. Early September 19th (today), I undid his reversion, for the article to once again say "the following September". My edit was 05:16. Five minutes later, at 05:21, Rhain added to our discussion: "To clarify, I think my previous response makes it clear that I still object—I think it's completely unnecessary." One minute later, at 05:22, he archived the discussion (along with other content). His behavior is unacceptable, and as a veteran editor he should know better than to actively avoid communication and collaboration. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:DF5E:2855:F417:DD5B (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

They have communicated with you; it doesn't have to be open ended. ANI isn't the first place to run, but the last. Have you tried dispute resolution or even just waiting for comment by others? Fundamentally this is a content dispute, not an editor behavior issue. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rhain's comment is perfectly okay. It is not "unacceptable behaviour" to respond to you twice and then archive the discussion when they have repeatedly informed you very respectfully, I should say. You have perhaps misread his comment and have come here. Take the discussion up on the article's talk page if you want. But I can say that as you have been reverted by other editors too, this is too trivial an issue to take offense at, and to invest time at ANI for. You should just move on, in my opinion, rather than spar on this. Thanks. Lourdes 09:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Block needed

This new (?) editor, whose only contributions are comments on a user's Talk page all along the lines of this, needs an escort to the door. FWIW, they might be a sock of this blocked editor. Thanks in advance. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. RegentsPark has already handled it (although it's only for 31 hr) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax both now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism/disruption, block evasion by Applee1212--requesting range block and/or multiple pages protected

Now blocked, Applee1212 (talk · contribs) lives on in the 124.253 range. I've asked for a block of the most recent account, 124.253.255.56 (talk · contribs), but a range block may be necessary. UTI Asset Management, Panjab University and DAV College, Chandigarh appear to be the primary targets, with a particular interest in promotion at UTI. The content persistently added there appears to be copied from other sites, so rev/deletion may be in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

CIR, IDHT and battleground behaviour on Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign

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

---

There is a lot in this report, but I'll try summarise it so as to save admin time.

Over the last few weeks, Klermodalwonfeyz has repeatedly engaged in poor behaviour at Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign, including repeatedly inserting grammatically incorrect content to the article which borders WP:CIR, WP:IDHT behaviour, edit warring and refusal to communicate with other editors.

This all started on 26 August, when User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user, as the edits had a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which were reverted, and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about a potential conflict of interest. The user didn't answer, continued to edit and cleared their talk page of some notices. User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question, and also received no answer as the editor continued to edit this page. As the editor continued to edit this page, I left a notice asking them for a third time to answer as to the COI thing. They continued to edit, and only after being repeatedly reverted by other editors and a COIN filing being created, they finally responded.

On the actual behaviour on the article: the editor has repeatedly added content that does not make any grammatical sense in English. For example, they have added the following:

• In after thought during an interview, Ramaswamy reflected "cult like" to some affirming advocacy rights groups 'is what this LGBTQIA+ movement has become'
• Ramaswamy believed supporting same-sex marriage in the United States when, for example,
• Ramaswamy did not taken a public position on the [..]
• He believes identity politics promotes victimhood and needs a replacement to a
• Polls find Ramaswamy, nearly to Desantis, as the second choice candidate

Further to this, they have repeatedly added garbled, non-English edit summaries which myself and other editors have told them are impossible to parse. For example: dont now tnat 'value' ez a sumare ov 'the Path Back to Excellence'., aym unkomfordabil beyenq askt for peyments ov entrest dhat destroy for ransom., ad sayt. muv bodom tu top., among others. Myself and Neutrality both left comments on this, and yet it has persisted, with the first of these diffs being just today.

I understand that English-language skills should not be a barrier alone to editing enwiki, hence why per WP:CIRNOT I suggested to the editor that they start suggesting edits at the talk page given the ongoing pattern of incorrect additions, only for them to issue no response and edit the page a few minutes later. Their only engagement at the article's talk page has been to accuse me of being "too hard" on them, then continuing to edit the article and add grammatically incorrect content, such as today's addition of incorrect English such as "He appeals that" and "Ramawamy". On a further CIR note, the editor added a phrase to the article on September 15, only to remove it two days later saying they don't know if it's a valid summary, which to me feels very like editing the article for the sake of editing the article.

Finally, on edit warring and battleground behaviour: the user repeatedly engages in WP:IDHT behaviour and repeatedly reinserts their own changes. After an edit they made, including renaming the "Anti-wokeism" section to "Wokeism" was reverted by another editor, they reinstalled it about four hours later. When again reverted by the same editor, they restored it the very next day, then after being reverted again, they restored it no more than thirty minutes later. They were again reverted having not answered the COI claims on their talk page, before restoring it 18 minutes later.

I have tried repeatedly to communicate with this editor on several occasions, as have several others, and exhausted every possible avenue I can, but to absolutely zero avail and only for the editor to continue disruptively editing. This has gone on long enough, and this user's consistent introduction of poor-quality edits to the article and refusal to listen or communicate with other editors is becoming disruptive. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the unconventional spelling has a been a problem even in articles in the past [83] [84]. While it's a while ago, considering at other times they can use more conventional spelling, I'm not sure what we should make of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hm. The grammar/spelling isn't a problem, the lack of responsiveness is. I would suggest a temporary (one month) PBLOCK from Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign and Vivek Ramaswamy. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user has been indeffed by an admin. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the grammar, but the spelling in wireless speaker was bad enough that it IMO is a problem. However since it seems to have only directly affected an article one time in 2020, we can probably ignore it provided it doesn't repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2023 (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.

158.62.82.19

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 revoke TPA from 158.62.82.19 (talk · contribs), per Wikipedia:NONAZI -Lemonaka‎ 12:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed TPA for the disruption. Just to note, NONAZIS is an essay, not actual Wikipedia policy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2023 (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.

Completely unresponsive disruptive editor

Articist is a completely unresponsive disruptive editor. His talk page is full of warnings but he never responds.

He edit-warred me on All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to remove reliably sourced information and I left a talk page message to pursue the content dispute.[85]

Upon reviewing this editor's history I found him to be completely unresponsive in violation of WP:COMMUNICATE. I left him a talk page message to communicate people.[86] However, this user is still editing and still refusing to communicate.[87] Editorkamran (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It gets better. Just on a lark, I scanned his Talk page contributions generally. Aside from his own talk page, each and every talk page edit he's ever made is a page move. Of the couple dozen complaints on his own talk page over the years, he's responded exactly three times: each with an exhortation to leave his edits alone and stop bothering him. This doesn't sound like an editor interested in collaboration. Ravenswing 07:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've advised them of our guidelines about explaining their reverts and responding to good-faith questions. If they continue editing without responding, I will block them from the article namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: He is back to editing and has ignored the talk page message as well as this ANI thread. Editorkamran (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked from the article namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be using Talk:All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Left 'm a COI notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

How to deal with hounding?

A user was blocked for violating policies for a week, the details of the block can be found here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas/Archive

and then they started hounding again using IP (WHOIS check confirms location and they're in same band of IPs compared to previous ones they used), 3 instanses were recorded, how do I proceed with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mizoram_bridge_collapse&diff=prev&oldid=1175513752

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fly91_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1175512763

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disasters_in_India_in_2023&diff=prev&oldid=1175511005

They keep following the articles that I created and the articles I edit Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

They did here as well - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1175625994

and here too - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Venigandla_Ramu&diff=prev&oldid=1175626547 with a different IP

Special:Contributions/39.34.178.97

Looks like a targeted attack from users belonging to specific country Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the latest IP, but our options to deal with disruptive dynamical IPs are very limited. Next time they shown up from the new IP. make two or three edits, and disappear again Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Totally understandable Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Puffing up chart standings: IP range from the Detroit area

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.

---

• 2603:9009:800:B1A7:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Greater Detroit has been puffing up music articles to falsely assert higher sales or chart rankings on songs and albums.[88][89][90] The disruption on this range dates back to March 2023,[91] but they were doing the same damage with Special:Contributions/2603:9009:801:F4C:0:0:0:0/64 in 2022 and Special:Contributions/2603:9009:880:10A1:0:0:0:0/64 in 2021. Can we give this person a time-out? Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

3 mo partial... Lourdes 08:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

2600:1700:9291:5CB0:DC68:6E81:901C:1476 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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 IP has attempted to make nasty personal attacks on their own talk page which were disallowed by an edit filter (check the IP's edit filter log for details). Please re-block 2600:1700:9291:5cb0::/64 with TPA revoked. Eyesnore 12:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This entry in the edit filter log shows that the IP has gone too far, attempting to send death threats to fellow enwiki administrators. It was thankfully disallowed by an edit filter. Eyesnore 13:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:10, 18 September 2023 (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-long-long lasting disruptive editing on Bulgars by MiltenR (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.

---

Admins have ignored this many times.

• thread1
• thread2

This user regularly comes to Bulgars, and edits the same thing over and over. Do I need any other comment? Beshogur (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You are insisting in misleading information to be included in the article Bulgars to spread your propaganda. Administrators, please, This user Beshogur (talk · contribs) regularly comes to Bulgars, and edits the same thing over and over. MiltenR (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Obsessing a group of unknown origin and pushing Turkic agenda while living in Europe as an immigrant 😂 Yeah buddy. You are probably 25-30 but acting like a child. Do you want a group of Bulgarian children editing Gotturuks as Mongolians? 🤨 176.55.36.148 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The same is the story with several articles related to the origin of the Bulgars as Bulgarians, Turkic peoples, Volga Bulgaria, etc. The talk-page of the article Bulgars is under persistent Bulgarian nationalist agenda attacks of IP-s as that above. Jingiby (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't answer the IP abuser. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This user Beshogur (talk · contribs) regularly comes to Bulgars, and edits the same thing over and over. now trolling? Not funny. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Also this user almost never engages on the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked MiltenR for 2 months for edit warring and and independent of the long-term disruptive editing. I see that MiltenR was blocked in May 2023 for edit warring for 2 weeks. The content being warred over in May 2023 ([92]) is the same as today's edit war ([93])> Really it's been a target since 2020. I do think an indef or t-ban should be considered. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2023 (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.

188.163.104.39 and personal attacks

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 blocked 188.163.104.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 72h for disruptive editing. They now started personal attack against me on their talk page. They have chosen to personally attack me in Ukrainian, apparently they think I will be more upset if they swear in Ukrainian. Could someone teach them manners please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoked, anon only block extended to a month for LOUTSOCK issues. Courcelles (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. The master just got indeffed. Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2023 (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:Godjo J

Godjo J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this author is article creation edit waring, consider:

• BLP Draft:Jijo Antony was rejected from AfC on 26 June 2023[94] as improperly sourced BLP. Author then directly created the same article in mainspace Jijo Antony without improved sources.
• Draft:Thala (film) was rejected from AfC on 24 August 2023[95] as Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles. Author then directly created the same article in mainspace Thala (film)[96] without improvements.
• BLP Draft:Khais Millen was rejected from AfC on [97] as promo and improperly sourced BLP; then deleted at AfD on 11 September 2023[98] Author then created the same article again in mainspace Khais Millen[99] without improved sources/content.

I think I got the links and chronology above correct; I think these three article's history show enough of a problem for admin action.

The rejected drafts or preferably the copy paste mainspace versions will need deletion:

• Draft:Khais Millen (rejected draft) and Khais Millen (copy paste move from rejected draft)
• Draft:Thala (film) (rejected draft) and Thala (film) (copy paste move from rejected draft)
• Draft:Jijo Antony (rejected draft) and Jijo Antony (copy paste move from rejected draft)

Editor has not responded to notices on their talk page including a COI notice at User talk:Godjo J#Managing a conflict of interest.

 // Timothy :: talk  19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article space as the disruption is clear. Hopefully this encourages them to communicate. No objection to broader spam block if folks think it's needed, but this allows for the cleanup to proceed. Star Mississippi 16:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

number 49 misusing talk page while blocked

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.

---

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

talk page abuse while being blocked. Revoking their TPA will probably help as well. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:22, 19 September 2023 (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 source misrepresentation after block expiration (again)

176.143.3.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has again misrepresented what a source ("Cancer" in Encyclopedia Britannica) states about a matter. This was previously discussed on this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1117#Repeated source misrepresentation after block expiration. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this dispute about dates in astrology, Jc3s5h? Are there any reliable sources at all about this nonsense? Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Astronomers and astrologers agree about what part of the sky "belongs" to various signs, although this way of describing locations in the sky have fallen out of fashion among astronomers. The dates the Sun passes from one sign to another is also agreed by astronomers and astrologers. Astronomers use groups of three signs to demark the seasons; In the northern hemisphere it is spring when the Sun is in Aries, Taurus, or, Gemini; it's summer when the Sun is Cancer, Leo, or Virgo; it's autumn when the Sun is in Libra, Scorpio, or Sagittarius, and it's winter when the Sun is in Capricorn, Aquarius, or Pisces.

In the disputed edit, 176.143.3.201 changes the date the Sun enters Cancer to June 21, while Encyclopedia Britannica says it's June 22. The Sun enters Cancer on the first day of northern hemisphere summer. You can go to the US Naval Observatory and get data for when summer begins for any year between 1700 and 2100, for any time zone you like. For example you can see that for Universal Time (formerly Greenwich Mean Time) there was a solstice at 14:58 June 21, 2023. But in 2020 in the same place it was 21:44 June 20. The problem comes in when you want to give a single approximate date for an encyclopedia. Which time zone should you use? What period of time should you average the results over? 1700 to 2100? 2000 to 2100? All the sources I've seen that give a single approximate date fail to explain how they decided on that date.

The issue is that the IP editor is misquoting the source. This amounts to a deliberate lie about the statement of Encyclopedia Britannica. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And a new IP has shown up 37.169.73.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously the same person. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Add 37.169.72.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to that list. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP is not so much misrepresenting Britannica as totally disregarding that sourcing, with some hilarious OR ("I am born June 21st. I am Cancer because I have the traits and description of this sign. You are not in charge of my astrological sign.") However I'd expect our WP:LEAD to accord with the body, and Cancer (astrology)#Background claims "the sun enters at the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, on approximately June 21", citing an OUP dictionary. Britannica's solstice says "In the Northern Hemisphere the summer solstice occurs on June 20 or 21". Maybe Britannica's Cancer isn't such a good source after all. NebY (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested indefinite page protection as six month protection was tried back in January but obviously didn't deter them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

San Marino at the 2024 Summer Olympics

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 article keeps on getting created without a valid reference. Multiple revisions have been moved out of article space. Can we get this salted for now? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

ʒ months. Lourdes 08:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

zh – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 14:44, 19 September 2023 (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.

Use of user sandbox for promotion/advertisement

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.

---

While browsing my watchlist, I noticed this edit by a new user, promoting what appears to be their personal social networking website. Upon further investigation, they moved their edits into their own sandbox, so would this go against WP:BADSAND and WP:PROMOTION? I'm hesitant to nominate their sandbox as a CSD unless it is clearly against policy. Either way, I wanted to check in to be sure. -- GSK (talk • edits) 22:48, 19 September 2023 (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 at Tanzim Hasan Sakib

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

Well, doesn't seem like whitewashing to me. WELLKNOWN applies to this sportsperson who, as per reports, gave misogynist remarks, and then apologised, claiming his mother is a woman (!!!).[100] If you want NPOV, perhaps someone can consider adding his apology. Thanks, Lourdes 05:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Non-communicative editor with multiple issues

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

Curvasingh, despite prior warning[101], adds poor citations to Times of India and to the tabloid Toronto Sun in topics of international disputes involving India at Hardeep Singh Nijjar[102], as well as in BLP articles at Raksha Gupta[103]. I am concerned specifically that they are pushing a pro-India POV with their repeated[104][105][106][107] additions of disparaging content towards the recently deceased Nijjar, whose death has caused a diplomatic row between Canada and India.

They are a non-communicative editor with 0 User_talk edits in their 2 year editing history. See also their creation of Draft:StencilJS, which was sent to draftspace after an AfD, the nominator saying that it was, "...written from a possibly bias POV and the article is not written as it should be on an encyclopaedia. Not from a neutral perspective and sounds like an advertisement." The edit history of the draft also shows that this user introduced a copyright violation into it.[108]

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

For what is worth, they does communicate when their articles get AfDs ([109]). A partial block from the article for them may get them to use the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't get over NSYNC starting back up 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks by Number 57

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

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

Today's order of events has been as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Hah. Nice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaint about corrupt editors here

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.

---

Ranting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

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

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

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

Working on a script to help editors make report here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated removal of CSD tag by IP

Resolved

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

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

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

Number of concerns on a COI editor

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

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

---

Hello, I was asked by other editors to post this here. I'm making this entry as I've been concerned by a number of actions by a confirmed WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST editor - @Gill110951:. I'm surprised some of these have not been picked up on before. For context, Richard Gill is a mathematician who has campaigned against the conviction of nurses who he thinks are wrongly imprisoned, including playing a major role in the release of Lucia de Berk. He has also now turned his interest to campaigning against the conviction of Lucy Letby: [110]. Looking into this editor I have seen what I observe to be a number of infringements on policies, which for ease I think is best for me to list and summarise here, starting with what I see as perhaps the most serious infringement:

• Substantial WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST infringements. In a talk page discussion the other day, Gill alluded to how his 'own page' had been 'repeatedly vandalised in recent months'. When I looked at said page (Richard D. Gill), I was shocked to find that he had created the article on himself some time ago: [111]. Somewhat surprised to see that this had not already been picked up upon, I then found that he had created other articles on cases he was directly involved in too, such as, notably, the Lucia de Berk article [112]. Obviously these were created some time ago, but the edit history shows that he has continued pretty much ever since to edit, revert and patrol pages on which he has a conflict of interest, as recently as a couple of weeks ago in the case of his own article: [113], [114]. Does this not all go against the COI policy that "you should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles"??
• WP:CANVASSING(?). Further research on Gill reveals that he has recently been promoting his Wikipedia edits to his own article on his social media to his supporters and followers - [115]. Considering that such actions are likely going to encourage his followers on the social media platform to come to his aid or support his edits, could this also not constitute a form of WP:CANVASSING? Unsure if this qualifies but thought I should mention it.
• WP:PROMOTION, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COICAMPAIGN. Gill said on the Lucy Letby talk page that his purpose, despite being on the talk page, was "not to suggest changes to the article" [116] and was "not suggesting changes to the article [117]. This was uncomfortable to me as it seemed, considering his aim was "not to suggest changes to the article", that he was instead going against WP:SOAPBOX and contravening the warning at the top of the page that "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". He instead was using the space to promote his own personal views on the wider Letby case and, tangentially, his criticism of the UK legal system in general, rather than (self-admittedly) discuss the article and changes to it [118]. Another editor, when starting the initial talk page discussion, had already suggested that Gill avoided this particular discussion as it partly concerned including him on the Letby article [119], but Gill did not heed this advice and instead did almost the opposite and just swamped the discussion and another related one he then starts: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]. I did try and remind Gill on a number of occasions of the other user's request for him to avoid this particular issue [128], [129], but he continued anyway. What I also thought was particularly concerning was his WP:REDACTING his own previous talk to provide links to he and his allies' personal campaign pages and to his own Wikipedia page (which as already stated, he created) [130]. I just ought to clarify here that I'm not complaining about him discussing on talk, I know that COI editors are encouraged to suggest edits there instead of editing COI articles directly and that them posting on talk is fine, but it's his specific conduct during talk discussions here which is what I'm concerned about on this point.
• WP:REDACT. As briefly alluded to above, Gill has also been altering his own talk contributions after other editors have already replied to him, an apparent infringement of WP:REDACT. He did so here: [131]. Whilst it initially appears that this edit may have been done in good faith, the surreptitious changing of his comment on "the enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" to "what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" was done in direct response to my talk point about how his acknowledgement of this 'enormous bias' in secondary sources actually reinforced my point [132] about how examples of reliable secondary sources disbelieving Letby's conviction are almost non-existent. Therefore, his going back on his original comment to redact it to 'what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media...' is evidently an attempt to conceal his previous, potentially unfortunate, comments. This really does seem to be a WP:REDACT issue. Furthermore, he redacted in that edit something what seems to me to also be quite disingenuous - his writing on himself in the third person(!) as one of the 'highly qualified professionals' on his side, which was misleading to editors who may not have realised that the person listing Richard Gill as a highly qualified professional was Richard Gill!

Another editor, @NEDOCHAN:, has since noted that Gill has now started directly editing the Lucy Letby article which he has a COI involvement in, including adding an unsourced addition on the specific subject of doubt on her conviction - the COI issue in which he is specifically involved in - [133]. He also reverted several copy edits and reverted NEDOCHAN's removal of the unsourced addition [134], simply claiming "sources are easy to find" and "easy to confirm from recent media reports" [135], so as well as ignoring COI guidelines, Gill is also appearing to now infringe on WP:Verifiability. Could I request that someone looks at this and considers if any action needs to be taken? Without anything I fear this editor will also progress onto more edits on the Letby article on which he has a direct COI clash. Thank you. Snugglewasp (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, then everything is fine!

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond that, you've made some puzzling statements. First is saying on the one hand that opinion in the UK runs 50:50 on whether Letby had a fair trial, and then on the other hand that "nobody in the UK dares to speak out if they suspect her trial was unfair." Which is it? Secondly, there's your comment about having been "banned from Wikipedia many times before." You are aware that we can all see your block history, right? [136] It looks to have been pristine before El_Cid's TBLOCK. Between that and your curious belief that being found guilty at trial is not held to be synonymous with being guilty, you will perhaps forgive us for not as confident as you are that your expertise trumps all other considerations and facts. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AdwenKnowItAll

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

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

Some samples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Ptb1997

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

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

Dwinug

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting rollback on myself

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Asie kij

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revoke TpA for User:Buildwell architects

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.

---

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

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

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

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

Harrassment over an image

There has been an edit dispute with CorrectieTik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the article Iblis. The issue started with [version]. The other user added in their edit summary "Much clearer, more SPECIFIC and direct image of Iblis which is 1.more accepted by scholars 2. gives the layman a better idea of the figure of Iblis. 3. was the main image before", wheras I responded in my [[137]] revert: "it was the imagine before" is not an arguement. 2. how is this a better idea of the figure of Iblis, if only the black figure and the turban is present and none of the other comon features? 1. No there is no scholary consensus. There isn't even a citation about that. It is a Siyah Kalam on which it was considered to be Iblis, but this isn't even for certain." Thereupon the other user [my revert]. What started bothering here is the edit summary "I made a good argument, nothing I said is disputed by you. Stop the vandalizing. Start a talk if you dont agree WITH arguments" ignoring the point by point edit sumamry, why the revert was a bad idea. However, since this looks like it is going to become a dispute, I went to the [[138]] talkpage of the article. The other User, however, ignored to comment on the talkpage, and [reverting again] and left message [on my talkpage] (see section called Iblis). I tried to make the user aware that the proper discussion is the talkpage of the article. Since it seems to be a new user, I explained them the third revert rule, and admonished them to calm down so we can solve this dispute. The responses however, there filled with hostiliy, personal attacks, and accusations while ignoring everything I put forth both on my talkpage and the talkpage of the article. The condenscending tone and talking down in their writing makes me uncomfrotable and I see no way to properly hold a discussion with the User anymore. That they decided to treat Users like this if they disagree with them, also makes me doubt if they are willing to contribute to the Wiki project in any positive way. I informed the User on their talkpage [[139]].VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)" (This line will disappear when you save this edit.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

next, they just decided that my revert was a form of vandalism and keeps on insisting I did on the further comments[141]:

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

Condescending talk, as if this user needs to berate me, especially about things I haven't done and insists on their own version of that is going on, still ignoring all attempts for a dispute resolution [142]: "I made several arguments, to which you did not reply. You dont get to threaten me with "youre going to be in trouble". I suggest you leave the picture alone, as you 1. have not given any valid reason to be against the picture 2. The picture features on the page anyway, so why do you care so much if its on top or in the middle? It seems utterly useless to pick this fight with me. Again: you are not the boss or owner of the article."

Here the person starts writing in Caps, accuses me of vandalism, threats, and continues all attempts to bring the original issue to the talkpage, keeping getting personal [143]

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

After saying that they aren't listening, they are on the wrong page, they just respond with the condescending words: "You listen to ME" [144]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User repeatedly reverting a redirect draft against template advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

If your objection was over a missing reflist, an honest mistake on my part, the solution would be to add a reflist, not repeatedly revert the entire thing, and you could have said so at the time. I have no idea what you mean by "very not editor friendly to reach", but your suggestion to create the draft elsewhere instead of on the page being discussed wouldn't have made it any easier to "reach". As I said to you in my edit summary and explained above, drafting a proposal below a redirect nominated at RFD in order to illustrate the proposal is common; some examples: I-95 exit list, Coach Harbaugh, Coach Gruden are all currently listed and have proposals drafted below the redirect notice, and here are some from the past several years: [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. You've also been an active participant at RFD for a number of years, you must have been aware that this is the case, so why revert this draft now out of the blue? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few more: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User talk:204.148.142.250

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.

---

I'm not sure if this is escalating too quickly but this IP address has been editing very quickly, very often multiple articles per minute, to "fetch Wikidata" to make infoboxes on random biographies about women. Many, many of these have been reverted, and then the user has reverted back [163], mainly on reverts by User:Nikkimaria. The user has not put an edit summary for any of their actions. I spotted this user from their action on Marta Bosquet, which just drew an infobox around the photo, introducing no data whatsoever. [164]. A random click found this edit, where the "infobox" is no more than the title of the page! [165] And here's another one, albeit on a long-dead person. [166]

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

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

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

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

revoke TPA and extend block of 142.190.0.194

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.

---

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

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

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

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

Incivility and Personal attacks by User:5staravenger

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

---

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

Casting aspersions and borderline personal attack [167] on GMH MELBOURNE. Incivility and threats to sockpuppet [168]. Basically casting aspersions on me and incivility again [169].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another threat to sock puppet on my talk: [170] ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

About several edits by Dominic Pringle

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, well thanks for not blocking me I guess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not EVERYTHING has to be quoting a media outlet

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

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

OK

Can you all please leave me alone now?

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

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

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

Persistent small edits on multiple pages by User:Landnama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I just found the evidence of page creation that neither passed through WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC by @Landnama because of their extended confirmed status (status flag update were given on 14 Sep 23, but they already reached 500 edits on 7 Sep 23 at 04:49 UTC [171], see [172] for their logs):
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=151883473 (already Congregation Etz Ahaim Sephardic)
    • This article was created on 7 Sep 23 at 20:19 UTC, just almost 16 hours after passed 500 edits.
  • Prior to that, they tried to create Haim Baruh article on 5 Sep 23:
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=151792895 (currently still Draft:Haim Baruh)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Idk what to say tbh. This is actually my first experience regarding this matter. This begin when I curiously see via WP:XC on WP:UAL then clicked Special:ListUsers/extendedconfirmed. Then, checking "Sort by creation date" and "Sort in descending order" (see [173]), I immediately shocked seeing many users account was created on the period of July-Aug-Sep 23 already extended confirmed. But, I quickly aware that the top 5 on the list is either alts or energetic users. However, at 6th place which is @Landnama, their edits was unusual that's impossible to not notice.

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

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

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

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

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

There have been at least 11 accounts over the last few years that edited Bryan Scott (quarterback) or its talk page that were paid by or on behalf of the subject of the article (disclosed and undisclosed) and subsequently indeffed (there's a list on the top of the talk page). The subject is notable but does not receive a ton of traffic, so whenever a new user edits the article or talk page and has no edits to other pages, it usually turns out to be another paid editor or sockpuppet. I indefinitely extended-confirmed-protected the article in March 2021 because of the sockfarms. Another new user whose only edits have been to the talk page popped up (Coffee765) with requests to make changes to the page, which I initially responded to from a content standpoint ([174]). With this article I fear I have been toeing the line with WP:INVOLVED and would like other administrators to chime in here. I would also like a review of the indefinite article protection since it has been 2.5 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP range block

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

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

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

GhostOfDanGurney/VQuakr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of notes:

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

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

User trying to defend their edits

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pbritti

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

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

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

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

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

Suspected repeat WP:COI at Grimes

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

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

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

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

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

Edits without support of reliable sources from Abdullah1099

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

The user has been engaging for months in edits that, on top of often being inaccurate or badly formatted, have always shown a lack of reliable sources in support. While this could be initially justified by his inexperience as Wikipedia editor, he has subsequently been advised many times by multiple editors in his talk page to pay attention to this kind of details (here, here and here for example). Despite that, and despite his positive messages of reception below those advices, he has never backed down from his disruptive behaviors, usually on a daily basis (this [176] being the last example as of today) forcing other editors to constantly check his movements to add the necessary corrections. Due to this behavior I would call for blocking this user from editing since he has shown multiple times his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules regarding the use of reliable sources and for the advices of more experienced editors.Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock review, please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm curious to see what you have in mind. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term disruption at movie articles by related IPs

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.

---

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

Pretty clearly the same user from the same geographical area, with lots of overlap at Lightyear (film) and edit warring at Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I don't know if this is actionable, but responses like [177], [178], [179], [180] don't inspire confidence. When not contentious, today's edits at Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 raise WP:CIR concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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.

Libya345433

Libya345433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has created a significant number of unsourced articles, most have been moved to draftspace and some have since been rejected by AfC. (See user talk page). Multiple editors have left comments to try and help, but they have been ignored. See user talk page for history.

Today the editor is linking mainspace articles to their drafts.[181], [182], [183], [184] (there are more, I left these are examples).  // Timothy :: talk  02:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Libya345433 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Clearpulse

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.

---

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

Creating an account for the sole purpose to promote. see its revision on stress ball. B3251 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@B3251: I can't see that diff now because it was evidently revdel'd. But if the user is promoting a product that is related to their Wikipedia username, you can report that to WP:UAA as a promotional username. Very simple to do with Twinkle. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Blocked for username violation. Edit was pretty blatant promotion. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:26, 24 September 2023 (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.

Restrictions abuse by moderator Wutsje

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.

---

Report on Dutch Wikipedia by moderator "Wutsje". Abusive restrictions and repeated removal of original content information on Bersiap topic. User090998 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@User090998 This is the English wikipedia. Each language project is individually run and gets to set their own policies and elect their own administrators - you will need to raise this on the Dutch wikipedia as English wikipedia administrators cannot help you in this dispute. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

user:Wutsje's only recent edit to Bersiap on English Wikipedia is to restore a justified citation needed tag. Meters (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't pertain to English but Dutch Wikipedia on which Wutsje has installed a block. User090998 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2023 (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.

CatmanBw (talk · contribs) edit warring / deleting deletion proposal (1rr violation) + personal attacks on identity.

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 Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, this user reverting my edit on deletion proposal for this poorly sourced page. my edit, second revert [185]. Also second thing [186] he wrote on my talkpage I kindly ask you not to nominate pages for deletion just because they go against your views. I understand that the article SDF insurgency in northern Syria goes against your views because your Turkish. However, it's one of the chapters of the Syrian civil war and we are trying to document everything that goes in the war for history. So please don't nominate pages just because they go against your feelings. This is not the first time attack on my identity on wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your first nomination for the deletion of the page manually because I couldn't do it automatically. You proceeded to nominate the page again for deletion. There is an obvious bias in your edit history towards a Turkish point of view. Just because you question the conflict of interest of an editor, it doesn't mean that you are attacking them. CatmanBw (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh more personal attacks. Beshogur (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Beshogur, how is it possible that you haven't noticed that PROD may be removed "if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason"? Restoring it after removal was completely inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. CatmanBw (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoring it after removal was completely inappropriate to be honest, I am terrible at nominating articles to deletion. Didn't know that. Beshogur (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is a lightweight way of performing uncontroversial deletions, see the first sentence of WP:PROD. A proposed deletion can be contested by anyone for any reason (or even no reason at all), and once it has been contested you cannot renominate the page for proposed deletion again. Reverting an editor to reinsert a contested prod notice with incorrect instructions that they cannot remove it [187] then claiming a 1RR violation when they remove it again deleting deletion proposal (1rr violation) seems like gaming the system. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. CatmanBw (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that either. However there is nothing called SDF insurgency in northern Syria. Plain made up article compiled with various sources including unreliable ones like twitter accounts and wordpress like websites. Beshogur (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the insurgency has been documented by one of the most reliable sources in the Syrian civil war, which is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights . A source that has been quoted by many international news organizations (such as Reuters and CNN). And that's just one source that is documenting it. CatmanBw (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the article is plain original research. And you see that SOHR is pretty much controversial source. The organization consists only by one person. Beshogur (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The instructions on how the PROD process works were explained in the template you added. If you still think an article should be deleted after a PROD has been contested your next step should be to take it to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a google search result from the link Beshogur provided: [AP News] CatmanBw (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The source only talks about PKK insurgency, not SDF insurgency. One particular attack. The whole article is compilaton of bunch of sources. And none of the sources except Foreign Policy stating "There are clearly the indications of an insurgency", and ANF (which is a PKK website) quoting Salih Muslim (had no relation with PYD in 2018) stating guerilla attacks will begin. Beshogur (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Turkish government refers to SDF as PKK to undermine them. In reality, they are not the same organization. (This just proves that you are biased towards a pro-Turkish government point of view). I can bring you many sources that document the insurgency if you are interested. CatmanBw (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This just proves that you are biased towards a pro-Turkish government point of view another personal attack. Just stop. Beshogur (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@CatmanBw Please stop attacking people on the basis on their nationality, and accusing them of bias without providing evidence in the form of diffs to support your accusations. If you continue you are going to end up blocked for making personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor.

These arguments about the validity/reliability/relevance of sourcing belong in a deletion discussion, not an ANI thread. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks

"Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic." CatmanBw (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You are not "Questioning an editor about their possible conflict of interest", you are attacking them on the basis of their nationality and accusing them of of misconduct/having ulterior motives for their edits without evidence. Either provide proper evidence that Beshogur is making biased/nationalistic edits in the form of WP:diffs or stop. If you continue you are going to end up blocked. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

CatmanBw, Beshogur's nationality is irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of the edits, so there's no need to mention it. Beshogur, if you still think the article should be deleted then nominate it for discussion at WP:AFD rather than reinstate the WP:PROD tag, or if you think some other change to the content should be made then go to Talk:SDF insurgency in northern Syria. I don't think there's any need to do any more here, as this seems to be a combination of a content issue and some misunderstandings about Wikipedia processes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've left a final warning on CatmanBw's Talk page about personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I still don't understand how it's a personal attack. I did not insult anyone. I was only trying to say that the editor in question has a pro-Turkish government bias (based on their edit history). I am not insulting them in anyway and I have nothing personal against them. CatmanBw (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I explained how above. Be grateful that you just got a warning rather than a block. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I just don't understand why a warning is warranted. I clearly meant to say that the users' content is pro-Turkish biased. And I clearly did not mean to insult them in anyway. Mentioning that someone might be biased is now considered attacking them? That's a taking a bit too far...don't you think? CatmanBw (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Where did you get pro-Turkish govermment bs? Beshogur (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  You referred to SDF as PKK, which is a thing the Turkish government does on regular basis. But if you look at objective sources, they consider them different organizations. CatmanBw (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say that, even if I say, not your concern. Secondly I was talking about ANF which is PKK's media. Also you priorly accused me of that before I wrote here. Beshogur (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, no, no. You seem quite intent on defining "pro-Turkish bias" as "disagreeing with you." Trying to convince us that calling someone biased because you don't care for their edits is somehow justified is a poor look. Several editors have told you now to cut it out, and less than a month's editing on Wikipedia does not give you the experience to claim that everyone else is wrong and you alone are right. You would do much better heeding the warnings than a disingenuous "But I don't understaaaand ..." Ravenswing 20:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I provided direct evidence on the bias. It's not just speculation. And I didn't say anyone was wrong. I am simply stating my point of view. CatmanBw (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, you did not. You provided a very indirect supposition, with no stronger basis in logic than to declare that every Muslim has a "pro-Turkish bias" because Islam is state-supported in Turkey. In any event, yes, we've heard your view several times over now, it remains a personal attack, and the more you keep repeating it in an insistence on having the last word, the more you risk it being your last word on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 21:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing That's not the equivalent of it. The equivalent of it would be calling the Ukrainian Army: The Neo-Nazi forces. In this case, it is not out of the question that the content might have some pro-Russian bias. I don't care for your threats. At the end of the day, I am fighting to provide bias-free content and help the Wikipedia community. If I am blocked for doing that....then so be it. I am not the one who's gonna lose if pages start getting deleted because people don't like them. CatmanBw (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Chill out dude. I understand your frustration, but your comment : "goes against your views because your Turkish" is a very bad look and is most definitely a personal attack. Specifically, per WP:NPA : "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views."

  Give it up here, you're on the verge of a block,and you are not irreplaceable. If you really want to help WP, go back to the article talk and work on a consensus. Crescent77 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have already apologized about that comment and I explained that I did not mean to say (Turkish). I meant to say (Pro-Turkish biased editing). Mistakes do happen when having a discussion; which is why I thought I was undeserving of a warning. And I have already mentioned that I don't care if I get blocked because I didn't break any rules on purpose. There is nothing wrong with having a discussion. I am not insulting anybody by talking. Also, I never said I am irreplacable, but I did just stop a page that's been on Wikipedia since 2019 from being deleted for no reason.CatmanBw (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2023 (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.

Bookspamming

Primary, if not sole intent is WP:BOOKSPAMing at multiple articles on behalf of Daniel Newman by BillyGoatsBluff (talk · contribs). This seems like a WP:POINTY response [188]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not bookspamming. I’m just added relevant resources and adding much needed information to the entry as it previously referenced only one source. BillyGoatsBluff (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You have not answered the WP:COI notice, BillyGoatsBluff. The only sources of interest to you are those provided by Daniel Newman. That's always an indication of conflict of interest, if not self-promotion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I did reply that I don’t know the author and have no connection with them. I simply read the books and added relevant factual information to the Wikipedia entry, not promotion. BillyGoatsBluff (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That you did, and WP:SPA is clear. The Arab cuisine article suggests there are many published sources by different authors. Perhaps administrators will find your explanation credible, in the face of [189]; [190]; [191]; [192]; [193]; [194]; [195]; [196]; [197]; [198]; [199]; [200]; [201]; [202]; [203]; [204]; [205]; [206]; [207]; [208]; [209]. I've omitted many intermediate edits from these diffs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User "AviationFreak" is acting inappropriately in the Talk section

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 their history of participation and draw your own conclusions in regards to their behavior. I have reported their indecent actions to make sure they don't vandalize anything again. Thank you for making Wikipedia great, guys! IntelligentParticipator (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@IntelligentParticipator I am unclear what you find indecent about AviationFreak's activities. You have not provided diffs of the inappropriate behavior. At this point, given your own behavior, you are in danger of being hit by a boomarang. Please provide diffs of the alleged inappropriate behavior. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, you have not notified AviationFreak of this discussion, as is required. I will do that for you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@IntelligentParticipator: in this edit you say that I've reported your activity from both my main and this accounts, what main account would that be? - Aoidh (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@IntelligentParticipator: Apologies if you aren't a fan of the -ussy article. Unfortunately, I don't think ANI is the best place to express that. AviationFreak💬 15:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at their history of participation and draw your own conclusions

That's not how this works. You need to provideWP:DIFFs to specific rule-breaking edits if you want action to be taken. We aren't going to go digging to figure out what you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I also would like to draw attention to this quote of yours: I've reported your activity from both my main and this accounts. You're admitting to this being a sock account. If that account of yours is blocked, then this is block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indeffed as NOTHERE. If it's socking, block evasion, or something else, it's clear they're not constructively contributing to an encyclopedia. Let's not waste any more editor time and compound the disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2023 (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.

Insertion of theological quotations into numerous unrelated 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.

---

Woodworker97 (talk · contribs), essentially proselytizing for Catholicism across the platform. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2023 (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:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahichowdhury20

Sorry to jump the queue, but could someone please have a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahichowdhury20? Multiple active socks are continally creating hoax articles. Wikishovel (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll do it momentarily. Courcelles (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. And thanks User:JBW for the help. Bit of a rat's nest, but the deeper I dug, the more turds I found. Wikishovel (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Historianarm NOTHERE SPA

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.

---

Historianarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Karki, Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (moved to Tigranashen, Armenia against talk page consensus) WP:ADVOCACY WP:SPA WP:NATIONALIST WP:NOTHERE just edits this article and almost always is reverted. Previously blocked for edit warring. Arguably this latest page move could be seen as "bold" but I call it belligerent. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Page re-moved back. Tx, Lourdes 07:05, 25 September 2023 (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.

Ziad Aboultaif

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.

---

Having some problems on the Ziad Aboultaif page. An account named User:Ziadaboultaif, that I think (based on the talk page) is run by Mr. Aboultaif's staff, made a bunch of edits to the page that weren't egregious but certainly smelled of promotion. I reverted those a few times, posted notes on the talk page about COI, promotion etc, but received no response. The account has stopped doing big edits but does keep changing the picture on the page to a copyrighted image without evidence of copyright ownership. The account's operator briefly engaged with me on the talk page where I asked them to respect the COI policy and pointed out the copyright problem, but they've stopped responding but continue to re-upload the image (which, incidentally, has now been deleted twice from Commons for apparent copyright violation).

There's also now another account joined in on the same pattern of edits with almost identical edit summaries. I received no response when I posted copyvio and sockpuppet notices on that account's talk page. What's the move here? AntiDionysius (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Their use of "we" in their only talk page response seems to suggest it's a group account. That could be grounds for an indef right there, especially if they won't communicate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Both accounts indeffed. Page protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK cool, thank you very much. Perhaps would have been easier for me to just report both to AIV but it was kind of a weird case. But the simplest solutions are sometimes the best. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  @AntiDionysius This was definitely the right venue. AIV is really just for naked vandalism and spam and there were enough side issues that it belonged here. SPI might have worked but this was faster given what was going on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Great, good to know. Tysm! AntiDionysius (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2023 (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.

Sarahbriner1139

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.

---

New SPA User:Sarahbriner1139 has been spamming some sort of jokey spam thing about themselves, using altered copied of WP articles, to main space, user page and their user talk page. They attempted to add the whole thing as a FP to the edit filter, then deleted a big chunk of outstanding genuine FP requests, apparently to bump theirs up the queue. Level 3 and 4 warnings blanked with no response. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishovel (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Enough nonsense. Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2023 (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:DaFuqBomm

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.

---

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

Impersonate In page Article Skibidi Toilet real name Alexey Gerasimov YouTube Channel Name DaFuq!?Boom!. User edit article spam fake channel name on YouTube. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is completely incoherent. What are you claiming is happening? What action do you want to take place? Why does this require admin attention instead of a regular user action? --Yamla (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see user DaFuqBomm created account 23 September 2023. It dose not meet Username Policy. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at what's available, I assume they're saying User:DaFuqBomm is impersonating the creator of the Skibidi Toilet series and using it to promote a YouTube channel. Here's a diff [210], pretty clear cut looking at it. Unsure if this requires an immediate jump to ANI (it's the account's only edit so far) but it's not a terrible complaint. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:UAA would probably be a better venue, as this account is impersonating a youtuber to add spam links to a fake "second channel". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DaFuqBomm for promotional username, promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2023 (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:SummerKrut

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.

---

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

SummerKrut has made multiple personal attacks in edit summaries, using the Russian language for the strongest attack, potentially with an intent to evade detection. Examples:

• ни к чему твой крестовый поход против русского языка не приведëт "your crusade against the Russian language will lead nowhere."see diff on Riga
• отмена правки гиперпатриотичного украинца "canceling the edit of a hyperpatriotic Ukrainian" see diff on Kupiansk
• сколько польских сортиров уже отмыл? "How many Polish toilets have you cleaned?" see diff on Riga
• сколько польских сортиров уже отмыл? "how many Polish latrines have you cleaned?" see diff on Severomorsk
• не надоело отменять всë подряд? "Aren't you tired of canceling everything?" see diff on Ganges
• you are not allowed to edit pages related to eastern europe anyway see diff on Borshchahivka
• let's wait for them to end up not providing any arguments and shaming themself see diff on Ganges

I have previously reported SummerKrut at ANI for battleground behaviour in particular on the contentious topic of Eastern Europe (see [211]). That ANI derailed a bit when two administrators got into an argument with each other. SK got blocked by @User:Lourdes and that block got lifted after SK retracted the personal attacks and promised to not repeat them [212]. Unfortunately, the above edit summaries show that this promise has not been upheld. I consider the fact that the attacks are not in English an aggravating factor as this makes it hard to detect for >99% of Wikipedians (few will Google translate edit summaries to hunt for incivilities).

Beyond hiden personal attacks, SummerKrut also regularly leaves misleading edit summaries: e.g. marking page moves as minor.

The majority of SK editing activity appears to be adding Russian language names to places outside of Russia, which they do usually without edit summaries (65% of major edits since June 2023 without edit summary [213]. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked SummerKrut, who was previously blocked for one week in June for personal attacks. In light of that earlier block and the continuing attacks -- I verified the translations of the attacks in the edit summaries -- I have blocked them for one month.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, a month sounds like too little for someone who has already been blocked for personal attacks, had his block lifted after promising not to engage in such behaviour in the future, and not only has continued to do so but does so in another language to try to slip it under the radar. Also implying that someone has been forced to go to Poland as a refugee and makes a living cleaning toilets is way beyond the pale. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @SouthernNights. I am no expert in blocks but I think the question of WP:NOTHERE arises. Instead of apologizing for their vile comments, in their response to the block, they suggested they will leave even fewer edit summaries in the future (recall that 65% of SK's major edits have no summary at all), in their words: the policy you cited clearly states 'All edits should be explained', therefore, leaving an edit summary is my right, not an obligation.. There seems to be a disregard of wider community norms, not just civility. I wonder if an WP:INDEF would not be more appropriate. Looking at the entire editing history shows that most of SK appear to only marginally improve the encyclopedia. It is mostly POV revert warring with "pro-Ukrainian/Belarusian" IPs, undoing undiscussed moves regarding a single vowel change in a small village's name that no one has objected to in 6 years (from Belarusian Novalukoml back to Russian Novolukoml [214]). Alternatively, a topic ban on editing place/event names that are on territory that is not Russia would be a good way to prevent future disruption from SK. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

After reading SummerKrut's response, to the block, I'm considering it. But I'd like to hear other admins weight in on this.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly a combative fellow. I'm not seeing where SummerKrut has made so very positive a body of work (fewer than 1000 article space edits) as to give the benefit of the doubt. (And to address AncientWalrus above, I'm one of those editors who routinely translates edit summaries/talk page comments rendered in other languages. This being the English Wikipedia, my presumption is that an editor suddenly choosing to communicate in a foreign language is doing so with the hope of getting insults past us, and that presumption seldom proves mistaken.) Ravenswing 23:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I just indefinitely blocked SummerKrut. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2023 (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.

Somebody under multiple IPs continuously vandalizing Sawdust article

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

On September 19, an IP vandalized the Sawdust article by adding this edit, stating "Sawdust is the main ingredient in pepperoni and many types of noodles."

Taking a look at the revision history, you can see after having their revision reverted, the IP proceeded to reinstate their vandalism three times before being blocked for a week by administrator @Ponyo. After which, it seems that the IP has been evading their block to once again reinstate their vandalized revision on the Sawdust article, but this time by using multiple IPs & switching to a new one every single time somebody reverts their edit. The following is a list of IPs that have been used:

• 64.141.33.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.171.85.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.244.248.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Judging by the revision history, it seems that the individual waits for several hours before hopping on a new IP and reinstating their vandalized revision, so I do not see this stopping. I'm hoping an admin could look into this and potentially pursue further blocking and/or page protection. Thank you.

Pinging @Novo Tape in case they'd like to provide any input, as they have also reverted the vandal's revisions. B3251 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'd like to add that, based on the page history for Ottawa, User:2607:FEA8:D55E:6F00:50FC:255E:F8A5:F824 could possibly be a block evasion of the same user. Besides that, I don't have much to add (although I agree that page protection might be in order). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Just popping in to note that Sawdust was protected by Favonian.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Msheehan1974 and 2607:FEA8:4ADC:100:E445:FD03:10B:4917

Msheehan1974 (talk · contribs): incivility and threat [215]: You think you’re funny. Well I have your IP address so it won’t take me long for us to meet up and you can say it to my face. Mincer! and Big man eh! Well I’ll let you know when I’m in Mississauga.

2607:FEA8:4ADC:100:E445:FD03:10B:4917 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): incivility [216]: calling the other editor numale. NM 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

these both appear to be single purpose editors. they sniped at each other and have probably moved on, so it is unlikely that this incident requires administrator intervention unless they go at it again. .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Easing3220

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.

---

• Easing3220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AntonSamuel (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've already pinged @Materialscientist: on the users talk page, this non-ec user is continuing to edit political topics on Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles despite me letting the user know of WP:GS/AA and it's restrictions. The user is now edit warring, I've reverted his edits, since I understand from WP:GS/AA that reverts made solely to enforce the restriction are not to be considered edit warring. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The user @AntonSamuel is trying to push his etno-natioanlist agenda in every single Wiki article about Azerbaijani region of Karabakh. Which is in itself is posing questionwhy a person that has interest in Armenia is involved so much in articles about Azerbaijani cities. They blatantly remove facts, and change narrative so Armenian side can look better even though they were forced Azerbaijani people from Kalbajar in the winter and harassed them non stop. Yet have audacity to think he is right. This person is full of hatred towards Azerbaijan and it's people yet he edits Azeri wiki pages to suit it's narrative. Easing3220 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Easing3220: Focus on the edits, not the editor - the restriction is quite clear and you need to respect it. Editors from all backgrounds and with all sorts of opinions need to stay civil and professional when editing Wikipedia. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC) AntonSamuel (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel Yeah talk about being a civil person that tries to hide ethnic cleansing. You need psychological help. Easing3220 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course I disagree with that statement, but it's not the point – you are editing in a restricted topic area and you refuse to listen to explanations and warnings, and instead go for personal attacks. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Now you are the victim nice gaslighting bro. Don't pretend that you are neutral. I can't currently undo your changes due to captcha error but as soon as I fix the issue I will revert your changes. You can't undo it as much as you want. Easing3220 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have a genuine complaint about AntonSamuel you will need to start another thread about it. In the meantime you need to obey the rule that only editors with 500+ edits over at least 30 days are allowed to edit in this topic area, which has nothing to do with AS' conduct. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok clear enough. Following rules is more important than being morally right thanks for letting me know. Easing3220 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The user's edit warring is continuing on Kalbajar AntonSamuel (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

yes it is due to systematic attempt of removing parts about ethnic cleansing. Easing3220 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Easing3220 blocked 48 hours edit warring and personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't think they'll stop until they're indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed- take a look at the user's talk page. They are already planning their edits in the coming days. Not to mention the racial/discriminatory language being used is shocking. More is needed than just a 48hr block. Archives908 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

If this is not a sock I will eat my hat. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ClassicYoghurt. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Not even going to bother SPI with that. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2023 (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.

Burvegas and edits contrary to the Manual of Style

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

Burvegas has been warned extensively about their edits to remove logical quotes from articles, most recently last week, and with "final warnings" in March and April of this year. They're right back at it today. I think a stronger message is in order.

Box of wolves (feed) 21:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Logical quotation is acceptable but not mandatory. That's because the MoS is the consensus view of what should be done -- in other words a guideline -- and is not policy, and therefore not mandatory. Editors should keep this distinction in mind and not elevate MoS to de facto policy status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's not mandatory, there is no good reason to remove them. This makes this user's edits WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree. The "good reason" is a simple preference: which is all the MOS is anyway. Thousands of edits a day do nothing more than establish one editor's preference in phrasing, word choice, formatting and flow over another's. I want a significantly better rationale to call an editor's edits disruptive than that you don't like them. How, precisely, are these edits being disruptive, and what diffs do you proffer as to specifics? Ravenswing 23:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

First and foremost, these edits are disruptive because they disregard the consensus-building process. Guidelines such as the Manual of Style reflect community consensus, and editors "should attempt to follow guidelines" in the absence of specific reasons to make exceptions. Burvegas's edits do not follow the community's consensus about the use of quotation marks in articles, as seen in [217], [218], and [219]. Burvegas has not justified these edits beyond stating in the edit summaries and on their talk page that typographer's quotes are preferred in American English, a position that does not align with community consensus on variants of English (at least as concerns writing on Wikipedia). They have not attempted to develop new consensus by discussing punctuation styles on the talk pages for the articles in question or the Manual of Style itself, despite being specifically asked to do so here.

While "thousands of edits a day do nothing more than establish one editor's preference [...]", those editors are expected to engage in dispute resolution should another editor express a competing preference. Multiple editors have expressed a competing preference here ([220], [221], [222]) and attempted to engage in talk-page discussion, and Burvegas has not responded with anything substantive outside what was already included in the edit summaries of the disputed edits, and continues to make similar edits.

The non-MoS edits here are also at least slightly disruptive in their own right; straight and logical quotes are considered best practices for technical and clarity reasons, respectively, and copyediting Wikipedia to conform to the Manual of Style is considered an accepted practice, so making edits that serve only to reduce compliance with the MoS will frustrate the work of those other editors. However, I think the core issue here is the refusal to engage in dispute resolution.

Box of wolves (feed) 01:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at the edits? It's obvious. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

They're disruptive because there's no valid reason to make the change. They're disruptive in exactly the same way that changing a bunch of articles written in American English into British English would be. In both cases it's part of the Manual of Style, is it not? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

They're also in violation of MOS:CURLY, causing unbalanced pairs of quotation marks. This is the only kind of edit they seem to make. Is it necessary to prove this is disruption? It is by no metric constructive. Folly Mox (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand disliking MOS guidelines but changing the right and not the left double quotation mark to curly (while making no other changes) when others have asked you not to seems facially disruptive. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that, changing only one side of a pair of quotation marks is disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

IPs creating hoax drafts

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

There may be more IPs I currently cannot find, but these two seem to be the primary culprits. Essentially, the main problem here, is that these IPs (one of them still actively doing so) are creating many hoax drafts. While there are some that actually exist, a majority of them appear to be hoaxes. I had come across these IPs while tagging the drafts for seasons 12, 13, and 14 of The Masked Singer for CSD, as the show has currently only been renewed upto season 11. Similarly, I don't believe anything has been announced for any new season of American Idol to air in 2025.

A majority of the hoax drafts appear to be coming from the 142.162.35.37 IP- I'm highly inclined to believe that all the drafts regarding 'Untitled Scooby-Doo! and _________ film' and 'Untitled Jetsons/Flintstones and Bill Nye the Science Guy/Neil deGrasse Tyson film' are completely made up.

I would personally suggest a block on the 142.162.35.37 IP (as they are the one currently still actively contributing to this issue) and doing a purge of hoax drafts create by both IPs. Magitroopa (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting... just seeing now that both IPs have previously been blocked once for this same disruptive behavior. Obviously nothing has changed. Magitroopa (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked User:142.162.35.37 three months for creating hoaxes. See also their talk page for prior warnings. The two IPs listed above are both from Newfoundland. Let me know if you notice other IPs continuing this activity. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OWN, NPOV and casting of aspersions by Theresunset on E.A.T. (TV program)

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.

---

(Mild trigger warning regarding self-harm) I would like to make a bit of a complaint regarding Theresunset over what I see as a case of WP:OWN and their apparent vested interest in the show despite them casting aspersions of me being supposedly a fan of a rival series, which I am honestly not interested in either. I have tried rewording the section pertaining to Joey de Leon's insensitive remarks referring to suicide by hanging and how it was condemned by audiences and experts, but Theresunset on the other hand repeatedly reverted my edits and spuriously accused me of "bias" which I honestly tried to avoid. From my interpretation of his wording he tried to downplay de Leon's tactlessness and portrayed those who criticised him and the show as "detractors", "mostly Kapamilya Network fans" as if he tried to emphasise the fabled network rivalry between ABS-CBN and GMA more than the severity of de Leon's self-harm remarks. From what I gather from the sources cited, audiences did point out a double-standard on part of the MTRCB for imposing a suspension order on It's Showtime due to an alleged lewd act by an LGBTQ+ comedian and their life partner but overlooking most if not all infractions by their rival show. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The article talk-page is this way. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

For transparency, Blakegripling mentioned this issue in the community Discord server and was warned for their attitude. It also helps to provide diffs about what the issue is, because right now this just looks like a content issue with zero attempt at resolution instead of a user conduct issue (e.g. this message shows the claimed aspersions and failure to AGF) CiphriusKane (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I do sincerely apologise for the gaffe I made over at the Discord server as it was at the heat of the moment and I wanted to respond thoroughly if not for being late at night on my end. My problem with the user is they blindly accused me of bias without any compelling evidence and spuriously alleged that I am loyal to It's Showtime yet the way I see it I only tried to make the passage as concise and neutral as possible given our policies; the wording on their revision seems to imply a half-hearted attempt at downplaying the subject's fault and put undue weight over the mud-slinging by supporters of the rival show. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaving a warning message on this user's talk page. The aspersion casting and demonstration of clear article ownership is unacceptable and it will stop now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done (diff, permalink). If this behavior continues, I think an indefinite partial block from editing these articles is an appropriate next step. Please let me know if the user violates those policies again. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll let this comment slide... ;-) The user was put on notice and now they have to "watch their P's and Q's". Don't do this to other editors; I'll have no problem "upping the ante" to fix this situation. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah shit, here we go again with this inflammatory comment. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Oshwah: who is "the user"? Not sure to whom you're referring.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Theresunset (@Amakuru: this is "the user") immediately reverted their addition with the same edit summary so now it's WP:POINTY as well as inflammatory CiphriusKane (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, well given the final warning earlier, and that they've continued making comments like "too biased" In edit summaries, I've blocked them from editing that article. If they are to be unblocked, they'll need to demonstrate that they can edit there collegiately.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Amakuru - Thanks for doing that while I was away. This user's behavior and demeanor, in addition to the policies they've repeatedly violated despite warnings, show me that they simply aren't capable of collaborating and behaving civilly in that article area. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:09, 26 September 2023 (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.

Delete edit history and block IP range

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.

---

• 2402:8100:2009:D61E:0:0:C1C0:9F54 (talk · contribs) Already blocked for 1 month
• 2402:8100:2008:F092:6CB0:6855:B48B:829B (talk · contribs)

Materialscientist deleted edit history of Revision as of 08:11, 24 September 20 and his revert Revision as of 08:13, 24 September 2023 after I requested on his talk page. Since the IP has also used uncivil language in his edit summary I would request if it too can be deleted then please do so. Now, the IP returned and added the same thing once again here. Revision as of 02:19, 26 September 2023 and was reverted by Box of wolves here Revision as of 02:19, 26 September 2023. I would request to remove the edit history and summary as it is too uncivil to remain on Wikipedia or any public accessible platform. And would want some action to be taken against that vandal IP. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Oshwah it seems there is much more left to do. First I would request you to block the second IP have I have mentioned above. Second I want you to have a look at 2402:8100:2009:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs). Its clearly a case of WP:NOTTHERE. I think the whole IP range needs to be blocked. Look at the contributions that the IP has made. Nearly all the edits are reverted and most of uncivil edit history is removed. But edit summaries are not removed. The user has repeatedly user abuses in the edit summaries. It will take too much time to mention every revision link. I would request you to look at their contribution and remove the edit history and summaries. And also block the IP user and if possible the whole range. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta - Sorry, I got pulled into another task that was extremely urgent. Okay, I just got finished checking out the IP range and the edits made from it to make the best determination as to how to stop the disruption. It's important that I make sure that collateral damage is low. Also, you can see that the IP address of the two users you listed begin with 2402:8100:2008 and 2402:8100:2009, which means that the range is actually higher than what the WHOIS shows (2402:8100:2000::/44). I've blocked 2402:8100:2000::/44 for one month, and all disruptive edits and their edit summaries have been redacted. Please let me know if I missed anything. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Oshwah Thanks for the quick action. I understand that admins are occupied with so many things here and the outside world too. As much as I can see, you have done more than what I saw untill now. Will let you know if I see more of this. Best Regards! Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:16, 26 September 2023 (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:92.88.117.66 as sock

After a sock of "维基中二群体代表" was locked again by Sotiale and one article got speedy deleted by G5, User:92.88.117.66 then appeared and re-created the previously deleted entry, as well as editing {{Chinese New Left}} and a few other wikis' related entries (idwiki, kowiki and ruwiki). ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 10:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Dilku911 keeps changing numbers in 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.

---

Dilku911 (contribution history) (talk) is an account created yesterday morning who spent yesterday changing numbers in about 36 articles, and he/she is at it again today. He/she just changes or adds numbers^{[223][224][225]} - he/she never provides sources. He/she even changed the number in a URL in an edit to List of active Bangladesh military aircraft. He/she has been warned. But I do not think he/she understands the messages about the need for sources on his talk page,^[226][227] and says that he/she is adding real data.^[228] Please can admins stop him/her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the user indefinitely. There is no need to consult me if any admin responds to a plausible unblock request and determines that there is reason to believe problems will not persist. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2023 (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 IP 167.61.138.109

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 very rude to me. I gave him a good faith warning that he should not be adding any disruptive edits to the Trojan Horse page, and he told me "F**k you." Please give this IP a temporary block or warn them more. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2023 (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:Baseball Bugs

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343#User:Baseball Bugs, which resulted in "User:EvergreenFir has implemented a 1-way interaction ban against User:Baseball Bugs towards User:AldezD".

And now this: Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#AldezD

One-way interaction ban imposed on 9 May 2022. @User:Cullen328: @User:Newyorkbrad: @User:Masem: @User:Guettarda: @User:EvergreenFir: Baseball Bugs has been blocked SEVERAL times for harassment and is now stalking me, even after I retired. This is not competent behavior. He has several topic bans as well as interaction bans. His post to Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions violates the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed 2022-05-06 "Baseball Bugs is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with AldezD indefinitely". Please do something to stop this editor from bothering me. AldezD (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Per Archive 323:

"Interaction ban - Baseball Bugs, I am imposing a 1-way interaction ban on you with AldezD. You may not interact with AldezD. Copying from WP:IBAN, this includes, but is not limited to, Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

• edit each other's user and user talk pages;
• reply to each other in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
• undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
• use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits."

AldezD (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me that he was trying to appeal the restriction. I'm not sure how he could possibly do that without making reference to you, but his main goal was rather obviously trying to get his 1-way IBAN lifted. Apart from the venue problem, which someone else pointed out, how else should he appeal? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very plainly exempt, as noted in the very next section after WP:IBAN.

Since you've gone out of your way to draw our attention to it, what in the living fuck is this about? —Cryptic 14:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. How is that reaction not infinitely worse than an innocuous request about getting rid of an interaction ban? Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:Cryptic The user was told almost 1.5 years ago to stop bothering me. He is clearly stalking me and still has some beef after being told to leave me alone. I logged in yesterday to see what has gone on since I retired, and I get an alert I was directly tagged in a message at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. After all the action from this editor bothering me, why is he tagging me in ANOTHER edit after an indefinite ban? After I retired, why would he need a ban lifted if I'm not active? AldezD (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You literally called them a "goblin". In no way was that appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right. It wasn't. I apologize. But that does not negate stalking behavior. AldezD (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Let BaseballBugs appeal in the usual way. Boomerang for AldezD, though, not just for the downright incivility of their comment (Goblin?!) but that they literally posted a 'Retired' template back in February... and have now literally come out of retirement purely in order to 'gotcha' BaseballBugs at the highest profile noticeboard we've got? Noway should you get away with that. Absolutely outrageous incivility and bad faith all in one edit. Absolutely disgraceful. SN54129 14:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with this individual stalking me repeatedly. I have multiple times asked to have this user stop bothering me. I happened to log in just to see what's up, only to have a notice show up that I was tagged again by this user after a year and a half later appealing an indefinite ban. If I'm retired, there's no reason to even bring me up in a request. Why would this user have any need to interact with me? Move on, do whatever you want, and don't reference me. Just stop bothering me. It's a long term evidenced pattern of stalking. That's hardly a "gotcha" when someone is explicitly told not to "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" and then appeals an indefinite ban. Move on with your life, stop tagging me and just do whatever you want. AldezD (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (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 by 174.244.129.71

174.244.129.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP editor is adding close templates to AfDs, using other user's signatures, adding protection templates to pages and removing AfD templates. Looks like a sock?

Diffs, although the contribs are fairly self explanatory: [229] [230] WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar thing at User_talk:Blablubbs#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Market_America_(3rd_nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by Kingshowman. Blocked for a week. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: 50.174.57.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just popped up to continue the disruption. What a nightmare. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeated disruption on Blue zone and talk-page

• Sauljnewman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.6.50.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.76.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.76.8.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sauljnewman has been edit-warring on the Blue zone article, repeatedly adding original research to the article. If you check the talk-page discussion they have been told many times why their editing is problematic. The same user has admitted to using the other IP addresses (they are all the same editor). I am not sure why they need all those IPs and an account but I will assume good faith as they are not claiming to be different users. After the user was told the content is WP:OR and unreliable they edit-warred on different IPs. After they were reverted they are now using the talk-page on different IPS [231], [232] repeatedly claiming that other users are "blocking" their edits. This is not good faith editing as they have been told why their edits break policy. The user has been told that their edits are WP:OR (the sources they are adding do not mention blue zones) and they seem to be doing their own statistical research, but the user repeatedly denies this and says they are not doing original research. This seems to be reaching close to a case of WP:NOTHERE. A block from the blue zone article may be suitable.

Any admin advice here about what could be done would be useful. At this point the comments on the talk-page from Sauljnewman's are disrespectful and bordering disruption because they have ignored advice from several experienced Wikipedia users. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for 2 weeks. Just giving the rope here for them to try to get consensus on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please allow criticism of the Blue Zones on the basis of government data to be posted on the page.

This is simply not WP:OR. I am citing CDC sources, which are stated by Wikipedia as an example of trustworthy soures, that clearly dispute the central claim of the Blue Zones that individuals have extraordinary lifespan. I am also citing Japanese government statistics bureau and the EUROSTAT database, which likewise show that the lifespan in 'blue zones' regions is not remarkable. The Psychologist Guy is claiming, absurdly, that these independent sources of evidence cannot be cited on Wikipedia because they do not explicitly name-check the Blue Zones. I have repeatedly asked hum why this is necessary, and why govenrnment statistics cannot be cited on wikipedia. He has not been able to state why, and keeps taking down these edits.

The CDC does not need to name-check every fad diet out there in order for it to be cited on wikipedia. The idea is absurd.

The idea that I cannot post Japanses government/EUROSTAT/CDC data to wikipedia, because reading the number from a map or database is 'original research', is equally absurd. Yet these are the objections being put forward here. Sauljnewman (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Sauljnewman has been told many times that their edits are WP:OR, check the Blue zone talk-page, it has been explained many times why their edits are unreliable. None of the sources they are adding mention "blue zones". Unfortunately this user is also using an IP address on the talk-page claiming the same nonsense which is now resulting in some personal attacks [233]. I believe this user and their IPs should be blocked. There is blatant disrespect for consensus, policy and other editors here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what is being said. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary sources that you have found. If you read No original research, you will find that your edits are against policy:

On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

If someone were to publish a peer-reviewed paper that reaches the same conclusions that you have from those statistics, you could cite that. But you cannot post your own conclusions. Matuko (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Squeakachu removing well referenced text on unsubstantiated claims of poor referencing

A very short paragraph was added to the article on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leader Harold Hillam discussing public controversy about that figure. The paragraph was supported by multiple references from respected sources (including other sources already used in the exact same Wikipedia entry) and references to United States Government documents. Despite this appropriate referencing, Squeakachu removed the paragraph in question on the claim that it was not well referenced. 2A0D:6FC0:2A16:1A00:EB52:911E:E524:2DB1 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Although there was some discussion on Talk, there has been no consensus on the additions and it seems Squeakachu was never contacted. It seems that Harold G. Hillam has now been semi-protected by Ponyo. I think this matter is resolved for the time being. Toadspike (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say WP:ONUS applies, but the IP/64 has been blocked for 72hrs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I saw this shortly after it was posted but got sidetracked with IRL stuff, so no harm done by the lack of notification. I've commented at the article talk page but if any further input is needed here feel free to ask. Squeakachu (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

RobelyBasis: reliable sources and rudeness

RobelyBasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually refuses to use reliable sources when editing articles. I count eight notifications on their user talk page for this issue. The most recent issue is CT Rail, where they have removed cited information three times and have not responded to a ping on the article talk page. In edit summary and their user talk page, they insist that a Youtube video is a reliable source (not the first time they have claimed unverified Youtube and Twitter posts as sources). Their responses to unsourced/poorly sourced edits being removed have become childish and hostile: ...since the wikipedia police can't use google to verify something, ... just to anger the wikipedia police that have nothing better to do with their lives!, ...you have argument dumbass. The combination of poor/no sourcing and hostile attitude is making this user a net negative to the project. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Bucky3423

Bucky3423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently started making promotional / spam edits. User page questionable for disruption as well. Clearly NOTHERE. Bestagon ⬡ 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 01:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:HoodGoose

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.

---

HoodGoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Contributions show WP:NOTHERE: overwhelming majority of edits have been reverted, violation of WP:SOAP and WP:BLP [234], appears to be POV pushing [235][236]. Given that almost every single action taken so far has created work for others it may be best to block, or issue warning. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Stale. Lourdes 08:11, 26 September 2023 (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 filter false positives vandalism

Vandal Jc11111 just before being indeffed did this to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. Can't be undone because a bot came and did something to it. I have no idea how that page works. If anyone does know how it works can they make sure the vandalism isn't breaking anything or giving anyone a free pass that they shouldn't have? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

that page gets blank reports all the time. the bot has already marked the request as being from a blocked user. ltbdl (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

When editing competence issues become disruptive

Well, yes, there's a lot of that. In this case, I'm referring to David Madbellics (talk · contribs), who previously edited as Charlesviibrown (talk · contribs) and JamesDavidson-Madison (talk · contribs). In the most recent incarnation, we have edits like [237]; [238]; [239]; [240]; [241]; [242]; [243]; [244]; [245]; removal of AfD tag [246]; and as an IP [247]. None of these are Wiki felonies--rather, they display a lack of competence in syntax, punctuation, capitalization and formatting that has left a small trail of clean up. I've attempted to broach the subject [248], and another note was greeted with similar lack of understanding [249]. Intentions appear to be good, but this doesn't seem to be their native language, and they're not proficient to copyedit effectively. I'm at a loss as to how best to proceed, without sounding harsher than I already have. Mostly, I'd prefer to hand this off to others, rather than task myself a solitary vigilance. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks, I underst

tand that, and also I will fix that David Madbellics (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to offer a few words at their talk page, to explain that their English is not good enough for copy editing on the English Wikipedia. Not sure if that will be sufficient, though. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It will be sufficient for me, Sir David Madbellics (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, David Madbellics has agreed to stop trying to copy edit, improve, or rewrite article text. That seems good enough to me, at least for now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How about adding citations, infoboxes, etc.? David Madbellics (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering that one of your most recent edits (even from after this discussion here started) is adding an enwiki mirror as a source for the same enwiki article, I have to say no, you should refrain from those as well. Fram (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

hello, sorry for repitions but, what's wrong in citation that I gave for that article? David Madbellics (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia mirror (see WP:MIRROR). It's a copy of the Wikipedia article - and you can't use a Wikipedia article as a source for itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

so, are you telling me that a source must not also a encyclopedia? David Madbellics (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm telling you that the source must not be Wikipedia itself! If that is not obvious, I really don't think you should be editing here at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How about adding citations, infoboxes, etc.? David Madbellics (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Propose CBAN

I'm sorry to have to suggest this, but the interaction above (on top of the English language problems) convinces me that David Madbellics does not possess the competence to edit Wikipedia. The "are you telling me that a source must not also a encyclopedia" in response to using a Wikipedia mirror just blows my mind. I therefore propose an indefinite community ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I just indeffed the user. I hadn't seen your proposal. I'm, there's no reason why such a proposal cannot continue despite my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - might as well formalise it here, I think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Or, then again, maybe just closing this now they're blocked would save time, so...

• Withdrawn now the user is blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Selective blocking of Pakistani users

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.

---

@Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, GeneralNotability, Izno, L235, Primefac, SilkTork, Wugapodes, Guerillero, Moneytrees, and Opabinia regalis: @Girth Summit:'s "they're in the same country" with a population of 240 million people with 21% of the population or 50.4 million people using internet "so I guess it's possible that it's the same person" just doesn't cut it. The Fixed Local Line subscribers of PTCL is reported at 2.4 million. So blocking someone merely because they live in Pakistan and use PTCL has now become a common occurrence at SPI. Please know that PTCL users don't have a static IP but a dynamic IP. There has been too many collateral in these false positive cases. This needs to stop.

Also ask Aman.kumar.goel why it is hell bent on removing someone else's comment and remind them that IP editors are WP:HUMAN too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.180.183 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Because you're repeatedly making baseless accusations that don't actually contribute to the SPA in question, and now you've copy/pasted the same complaint here. IP needs blocked just for spamming pings, if nothing else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Baseless accusation at whom exactly? I can mention at least half a dozen SPI cases where each new Pakistani editor is reported by a gang of next door neighbors and these users eventually end up getting blocked. ArbCom needs to review these SPI cases where circumstantial evidence is used for placing one-sided blocks. 39.34.180.183 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Another gem by Girth, "Comparing against what I can see in the CU logs indicates that the user is in roughly the same part of the same country." So living in Pakistan is now a crime. 39.34.177.168 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Since that wasn't the basis of the block, it's hard to see what you're whining about. --JBL (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying it's a usual practice for admins to block someone after a CU when they happen to be "in the same country" or "same part of the same country" even in cases when that country is say for example USA, China or India? Maybe, in reality this heavy handedness is reserved for users from Pakistan. Instead of blocking someone over abuse of multiple accounts when happen to be in the same city, a wider geographical link is enough to place a block for Pakistani users specifically.

This gang of Indian users reports any new Pakistani editor on multiple SPI threads to see what sticks and one eventually does simply because they happen to live in the same part of the same country. What happened to matching any two users to see if they are using the same internet connection, device and browser etc.?

Mark my words, you continue on this path and the Indian nationalists will continue to run riot and WP would lose any popularity left in Pakistan. 39.34.177.168 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if *any* of those users are Indian. let alone *all* of them; in fact, I know for a fact that several of them are *not* Indian.

Spouting out conspiracy theories about "Indians repressing Pakistanis on Wikipedia" isn't going to end how you want it to though.

2603:7000:CF0:7CB0:686C:F13:CD5C:205F (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Who exactly are you talking about? 39.34.179.87 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying it is usual practice when investigating sock-puppets to take geography into account, that this is obviously a good and correct practice, and that your reaction to a routine example of it is absurd -- either an incompetent or malicious misrepresentation of what took place. There are good reasons to be concerned about Hindutva / Indian nationalist editing on Wikipedia, but they have literally nothing to do with a British checkuser making a routine comment on geolocation as part of a sockpuppet investigation. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Just gonna mention here, that the user socking in question, has posted a complaint about the SPI offwiki on a Reddit post, seen here: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/16rp5jz/my_account_got_banned_for_something_i_didnt_do/ , so I think some canvassing is suspected here. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I moved the SPI report under discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ, which is now closed. MarioGom (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• I would like to comment that this unregistered user is using multiple IP addresses to edit war here. Request an admin to please look into this. Wrythemann (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Update: IP 39.34.179.87/39.34.177.168 just violated the three-revert rule at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_Pakistan&action=history. Please look into this. Wrythemann (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2023 (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.

JBW self-reporting in relation to Persianwise

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 already said the following below, but I think it may make it clearer for anyone reading this for the first time if I make it clear right at the start. This is about an incident where I made a block which I have withdrawn, as I now believe that I was mistaken in placing the block. However, the problems which led me to block still remain. JBW (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I have partially blocked the editor Persianwise from the pages User talk:JBW, User talk:D.Lazard, and Talk: Cartesian coordinate system. I am posting here in case it may be thought that I am WP:INVOLVED. I do not myself believe that I am involved in the sense of that policy, but I am allowing for the possibility that others may interpret it differently.

The starting point of this case is a content dispute between Persianwise and D.Lazard relating to the article Cartesian coordinate system. That content dispute is a very small matter, concerning what to me is a trivial difference over choice of words. I have no strong feeling as to which wording should be preferred. If anything I perhaps marginally prefer Persianwise's version, but the block is not about the content dispute: it is about behavioural issues stemming from that dispute.

Persianwise has argued in favour of their preferred version on the basis of a misunderstanding of mathematical concepts, and the way that I came into this was attempting to help them understand their mistake by giving explanation on their talk page. D.Lazard also tried to explain the issues. Persianwise edit-warred on the article until Johnuniq fully protected it for a while. Their response to my and D.Lazard's attempts to help clarify the issue has been to persistently post on our talk pages to an extent which amounts to harrasment. They have repeatedly patronisingly told us that, unlike themself, we do not have "a proper background in mathematics", that the mathematical ideas involved are "far beyond the level of [our] mathematical ability", that D.Lazard "is unable to understand the basics of mathematics", and so on. Whether those claims are true or false is not the issue, as either way persistently harassing editors with posts like that is unacceptable; however, for what it's worth the claims are in fact absurd, as I have a degree in mathematics from a university with a high international reputation in the subject, and D.Lazard is an emeritus professor of mathematics from a university with a very high reputation, as can be seen in the article Daniel Lazard.

Persianwise has also added other dimensions to their harassment, such as repeatedly badgering us over and over again to give answers to questions which have already been answered, but where they cannot or will not take in the answers they have been given: see WP:IDHT.

As far as I am concerned, Persianwise's persistence in an aggressive battleground approach to their disagreement with D.Lazard, their edit-warring on the article, and their harassment of myself and D.Lazard are sufficient grounds for a partial block; indeed, I have seen many editors site-blocked for less. I do not believe that I am disqualified from imposing the block by the policy on being involved, but since there is a reasonable chance that others may think I am, I am bringing it here, and if consensus is against me I will accept that. JBW (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion and I've now got a sore head, but then A Level Maths nearly did my head in too (there were no Hannah Fry videos back then). I think your explanation of what's going on is reasonable. Personally, I wouldn't have blocked Persianwise from my own talk page unless they were being grossly and unrepentantly abusive - I think it's just a fact of life that some people, even subject experts, don't like to be told by admins to stop being disruptive - but that's just me. I think Deepfriedokra's suggestion of getting a third opinion or seeking dispute resolution, ideally from another experts in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics is the answer here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, Ritchie333. You and Deepfriedokra both see dispute resolution as the way forward, and perhaps you are right. However, for the following reasons why I don't see it that way. Firstly, as I have said above, I don't see the (very trivial) content dispute as the issue; it's the behavioural problems. Secondly, although I did not express an opinion on the initial dispute over content of the article, my own intervention was an attempt to offer dispute resolution, in the form of a third opinion, on the associated argument about mathematical principles, and Persianwise's response gives me no faith whatever in the likelihood of dispute resolution on the content issue being any more successful. JBW (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't check the history because you tell a story with no diffs, but going by the story alone, I would consider you absolutely and obviously involved. But since you've self-reported within an hour and it is just a partial block, I reckon we can discuss whether the block is necessary and whether you can be the one to do it, before any further action happens.

Again, from your story alone, you are involved because you tried to explain content to them, you sided with D Lazard, you determined that they were patronising and harassing you, not just Lazard, and you blocked them from your talk page. You can not say you are not involved, but you can say that it was an obvious and urgent case so you acted even though you are involved, and now would like endorsement from fellow admins. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: I have read your comment and thought about it carefully, and I have decided that to a large extent you are right. There are some details on which I don't agree, perhaps the main one being that I did not try "to explain content"; what I tried to explain concerned their misundertstanding of mathematical principles which they introduced, and which were not part of the content of the article at all. Nevertheless, I think I was not thinking clearly; I thought I was not "involved" because I was not involved in the content dispute, but, as I have said, the block was not about the content dispute, and I do see, having read your comment, that it is reasonable to say that I was involved in the subsequent issues that led me to blocking. I shall therefore remove the block, and leave it for others to decide how best to deal with the situation. JBW (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you JBW. Though I did say it was not urgent, I believe it was the correct decision for you to have unblocked after other admins made themselves available to take over. I am heartened by your openness to questioning, reconsidering, and changing your mind. I believe it is reassuring to the whole community to see an admin set an example in this manner.

I concede that there are cases where an admin can make content determination without getting involved. And I can see how to an expert mathematician, someone obviously misunderstanding a mathematical principle would be just such a case. But it has to be obvious to laypersons, not just experts, in my opinion. For example, if he'd said something like 2 is an even number, only odd numbers can be prime, you would not become involved by telling them to cut it out or get blocked. But when neither Ritchie (above) nor I can tell who's in the right because you're discussing maths beyond our understanding, and we are the peers who have to make the determination as to your involvement, that makes you involved. That is my opinion (or advice as it pertains to how to avoid appearing to be involved even if and when technically not). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Without any doubt, for the editor's comments on mathematics to be treated as disruptive it would be have to be obvious to a lay person, unless consensus had been reached among several editors with enough knowledge to be able to contribute an informed opinion. However, I don't think that is the point here, because the issue over which I (mistakenly) blocked, and which I hope can now be resolved here is not whether Persianwise was right or wrong about that issue, but about whether their way of handling the disagreement over that issue was right or wrong, and that can be assessed by lay people without mathematical knowledge. JBW (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

My response was in reference to I thought I was not "involved" because I was not involved in the content dispute from your previous comment. You are in fact involved with respect to that article because you've made multiple comments on the talk page of that article about the subject matter. Sometimes, we have trolls who will make blatantly false assertions and addressing those problems would not make you involved, but when you express opinion about an article beyond that, you lose your right to act as an admin with respect to that article. This includes not blocking other editors of the same article with relation to their editing of that article even if you have never been in a direct conflict/disagreement with them, especially not editors you disagree with. The way to remain uninvolved is to say no more than Johnuniq had said. But you are correct. The immediate INVOLVED issue is resolved and it's best the thread focuses on behavioral aspects of parties, which is an independent issue. We can discuss INVOLVED on your talk page or mine if we still disagree on it, and you are still interested in resolving it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:

Please note that User:JBW was not only involved in but also demonstrated antisocial behavior in support of User:D.Lazard, who initiated the edit warring. He made this antisocial comment by stating that my assertion was "comical" when, on the contrary, it was mathematically precise.

Please refer to comment made by JWB at 20:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) on D.Lazard talk page.

Both of them also intentionally avoided answering legitimate questions about the issue at hand. Had they answered the questions, they would not have been able to continue the edit warring that they had started, and it would have immediately come to an end.

The question was simple:

If they disagreed that a number line and an axis were different things, where would they put either of them on a straight line? The correct answer is that they all coincide, which means that a number line and an axis are the same thing.

Despite this, they repeatedly reverted my justified edits, yet accused me of edit warring. The above question has remained unanswered up to now. Evidently, seeking the answer from him made him abuse his role as an administrator to block me. Persianwise (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Persianwise I think you may be misunderstanding how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That means we all need to be civil to each other. It also means we all need to accept when others are not convinced of our arguments, even if we don't feel they've been refuted.

First and foremost, remember to comment on the edit, not the editor. Saying someone doesn't have knowledge of mathematics comes off as a personal attack, and can get you blocked. Characterizing JBW's comments which you linked above as antisocial is indeed comical; JBW's explained in full about how D Lazard is a professor emeritus of mathematics, thus the accusation is comical. So you characterizing JBW as antisocial comes off as WP:ASPERSIONS, which can also get you blocked. Regarding edit waring, note that the onus is on YOU to get consensus for adding new material. Similarly, they are not obligated to answer your questions: see WP:SATISFY. Regardless of your intentions, the situations comes off as you displaying battleground behavior. If you keep it up, you may quickly be shown the door, and be unable to make your points here at all. You seem to have a lot of passion and some specialized knowledge, and I'd like to see you stick around. Therefore, I hope you change your approach to ensure that you can. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I found your comment "Characterizing JBW's comments which you linked above as antisocial is indeed comical" to be antisocial behavior as well. Persianwise (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

They can use the next 3 days to read the rules, because that's enough editing for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to see you've been blocked, @Persianwise. But being correct is not enough. And thinking you're correct is not a guarantee that you are in fact correct. Maybe you are a great mathematician, but you met two other great mathematicians, and instead of it resulting in a conversation worth archiving for posterity, it resulted in pointless bickering with everyone talking over each other and failing to even acknowledge that the other person is worth listening to. Wikipedia does not tolerate such chaos and hostility. That other people are wrong or behave wrongly can be a mitigating factor, but it does not excuse or justify your behaviour. I would advise you to take your time to reflect and come back to it with an assumption of good faith among all parties and an assumption of competence. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In light of some comments above and if wanted, JBW could remove the partial block and I or someone else could monitor the situation. Again I haven't examined the details but it looks like a lot of very inappropriate commentary has occurred on user talk pages and I would just let Persianwise (talk · contribs) know that any repeat of that would result in escalating blocks which I would be willing to apply. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq. You posted that while I was composing my message above where, as you can see, I came to the decision that I was mistaken in blocking, and that I should remove the block, which I have now done. If you are willing to keep an eye on the situation, as you have said, that will be very helpful. JBW (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I saw some of the messages from Persianwise on JBW‘s talk page and I did not think it was an acceptable way of communicating (example diff: Special:Diff/1177289616). I feel that a p-block may well have been justified, however I think it would have been better if JBW had requested that an uninvolved admin consider applying one, rather than apply one to Persianwise themselves. Putting to one side the question of whether an admin is involved by the letter of the policy, in my view what is potentially just as important is that an admin won’t be seen as being involved — and in this case, the latter (in my view) is definitely true. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 10:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. As an involved party, I fully support the blocks issued by JBW, although it would be better if they would have been issued by another administrator. Indeed, Persianwise's behaviour is blatantly disruptive, not only because of harassement and personal attacks, but also because it prevents any constructive discussion on the many issues of the article.
  This being said, the dispute is not really a content dispute, but a terminology dispute (what are an axis and a number line? is, or not, analytic geometry a part of geometry?). In such an elementary article, this is far to be minor, since this sort of article is commonly used by college students and teachers, and a wrong terminology in WP may contribute to have educational mathematics that differ from usual mathematics (of mathematicians and physicists). So, because of its possible consequences, the dispute is far to be minor. D.Lazard (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2023 (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.

CBAN evasion

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was community banned in October 2021. It appears he is evading the ban.

The edits from 2603:8080:A402:6894:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) fit the pattern perfectly: identical topic areas of automobiles and pop music, and this edit summary is exactly Carmaker1's style. More recently, 2607:FB91:1A75:8A76:60A4:BEFF:FEBA:3FFE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been resuming the effort to purge the use of model years from American car articles, which was one of Carmaker1's priorities on Wikipedia. The IP resolves to the same state, and this edit summary is in line with the usual pattern. --Sable232 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. I've blocked both /64s for six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocking a /64 on a mobile IP range for six months is a bad idea. It's just going to cause collateral damage without impacting the sock puppeteer much at all. If you're going to block a mobile IP range, you need to do a much wider block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What's a reasonable max for a /64, NinjaRobotPirate? El_C 01:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to say. It depends on the ISP, really. In many cases, either 31 hours or a week. Some ISPs, like AT&T Mobility, dump a lot of their customers on a /64. If you block a /64 on AT&T Mobility, it could very well block a significant portion of editing from an American city, but individual customers will likely stay on that /64. So, it's a balancing act between trying to stop LTA vandals from editing vs mitigating collateral damage. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, generally dumps people on a /40, and I suspect blocking a /64 won't do anything to stop them from editing. I think all they have to do is press one button on their smartphone, and they're back to editing from a different IP address on that /40. A short 12 hour or 31 hour block might discourage impulsive vandalism, though. On Jio, there's probably going to be a lot of collateral damage whatever you do, but that goes 10x for any ISP in Nigeria. I try to do short blocks on Jio when I can, maybe around 31 hours or even a week, and I try not to do any range blocks on Nigerian ISPs if I can help it. For Indian and Nigerian range blocks, I often leave account creation enabled if I do a block longer than 24 hours unless it's an LTA vandal who needs to be stopped from creating new accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights! I think it'd be good if these details were to somehow be integrated with the documentation @WP:/64 (whose #P.S. only touches on AT&T and Verizon). El_C 04:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

He's been on 2603:8080:A402:6894:0:0:0:0/64 for a few months. Possible he's moved to the other one and could move again though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

My Super Scientific Fool-Proof Method™© for blocking /64s is "how long have they been on this range?" + a smidge extra time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Deliberate and partisan BLP violation and introduction of falsehoods

CONTEXT: Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

I noticed that

• Ericson Barbarona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

made a series of edits, which I have undone. They were clearly deliberate and not an accident.

1. The first one removed "false" and the source and replaced it with their own OR interpretation of events and a BLP-violating and libelous falsehood against Joe Biden.
2. The second one introduced the editor's POV contrary to RS. They should keep their opinion that Trump's impeachment was "wrongful" out of Wikipedia.
3. Then they proceeded, with a series of edits, to literally reverse the polling numbers for support and oppose.

This demonstrates a devious and deliberate partisan editing thought pattern that we do not allow. Those edits were not "accidentally" wrong. Editors are allowed to have political POV, but not to let them creep into their editing or the reasons for their editing.

I have notified the editor and scolded them in pretty clear terms, warning them that such actions will not be tolerated here. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be topic banned or permabanned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, you provided a clear warning, and I followed that with a CTOP notice; there have been no edits since, so I'm not sure why this has been escalated to here?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This was written at the same time that you were also writing there. Maybe the warnings will be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Dandielayla, Ainsley Earhardt, and competence

Dandielayla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ainsley Earhardt. 5 days, 69 edits, this user is singularly obsessed with a Fox New host's date of birth. They do not understand what it means to find a reliable source, to cite it, to differentiate from reliable vs. unreliable. The article talk page, their user talk, and the RSN noticeboard is just awash with emoji-laden screeds that vary from slightly passive-aggressive to self-deprecating "I'm sry, I suck, sry sry sry", over and over. This person is not grasping what is being required of them to be a competent editor.

Eleven attempts to add the d.o.b. in 5 days.

Please put a fork in this. At the very very bare minimum, an indefinite topic ban on the topic of Ainsley Earhardt, is necessary here. Others may want to go for a full BLP restriction, perhaps. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Dandielayla from Ainsley Earhardt. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t trying to be obsessed with her article, and her page. I know what I did was wrong, and I say sry bc I understand what I did was wrong. I have ceased on the emojis part, and someone said I shouldn’t give up. Now I don’t know what to think at this point and I thought I was loved for trying to be a good editor. I know I have said I wasn’t good or have said I was stupid, and I know what RS stand for now. Someone explained it to me, and suggested I read the biographies of living persons. This is the last time I will say sry, and I’m really sry for messing everything up for u guys. I may be a failure, and have failed at editing but I understand why I’m indefinitely blocked now from editing Ainsley Earhardt’s article. Plz accept my apology, and thank u 🙏🏻 for helping me. Dandielayla (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: Please read the guidance if you wish to be unblocked. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, and I will read the guidance to be unblocked. Thank u for the link, and for the tips. Dandielayla (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Update. Dandielayla took my and others' advice and tried to improve other articles. They worked from the list of suggested newcomer tasks, but sometimes strayed from or didn't understand the specified task: for example here an attempted image addition and an attempted end date addition tagged as copyediting. They also tried the Teahouse, but unfortunately focused there on the Earhardt article and their block. Some of their problems undoubtedly come from being on mobile—I suspect that's why they keep trying to add inline links. But their talk page also demonstrates that they are finding it very hard to understand and absorb all the information we've been trying to give them. And now after further warnings their indefinite block has been made sitewide by Yamla. I don't know what else we can do; Zaathras appears to have been correct at the outset, CIR. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note also that the user repeatedly promised to stop what they were doing, only to immediately continue. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It does look like competence, but I'm also going to suggest that using the mobile web interface actively makes editing harder and adding rookie mistakes easier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Trying to edit talk pages on the mobile app is horrible. Can't work out the indentation. I stopped trying. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 said it best here, "We would all be better off if the WMF shut down all these poor quality smartphone/mobile apps, which are an impediment to collaborative editing. I cannot imagine the amount of money that has been wasted on these crappy apps over the years, but "small fortune" comes to mind". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Dandielayla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive editing and WP:CIR. They may wind up needing talkpage access revoked, as they cannot seem to properly comprehend the reasons for their block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't withdraw talk page access. They are not doing any harm by continuing to try to understand and responding to people who try to explain things (most recently an IP deserves a tubful of thanks, but not only can I not use the thanks function for an IP, it's one of those newfangled semi-infinitely varying IPs so not worth starting the talk page to do so). They've started to figure out the unblock template; they'd never manage UTRS. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Newfangled IP in question here; thanks received! And I agree that withdrawing talk page access would be a mistake. The user seems legitimately confused and trying their best to understand the various policies and templates and practices at play here. Sure, this might well still end with CIR and the standard offer, but they've done absolutely nothing so far to merit revoking their own talk page access. If any admin is tempted to do so, perhaps that admin's time would be better spent responding to the user's nearly-two-days-old-and-counting unblock request with some tangible guidance. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8C27:D611:283D:EEB6 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If anyone could see this, sadly, TPA has been revoked for that Dandielayla was making a spam edit, as well as an edit request to an article on their user page. With regrets, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, they have had an open request for unblock for a day now. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User @RxxingAddict: unwilling to add sources to their additions despite being repeatedly warned about this for over a year

I am starting this topic because I do not know how to act otherwise. Repeated notifying and warning on the user's talk page does not seem to change their behaviour, and by now they have resorted to simply deleting any notification of adding unsourced content. There does not seem to be any malicious intent, just simple lazyness and unwillingness to accept the importance of sources. I am tired of always having to clean up behind them, and it is not just me - I have observed other users notifying RxxingAddict about the same problems, such as @Island92: and @GhostOfDanGurney:. Again, I am not opening up this topic because of a personal problem with the user, just because I want this to be resolved. Thank you. H4MCHTR (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours: User talk:RxxingAddict#Block. El_C 08:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Paradoxodarap

User:Paradoxodarap has reverted several edits of mine and Shushugah without an adequate edit summary in what appears to be retaliation for opening and voting on an AFD for an article they were a major contributor to. It likely only requires a warning but I wanted to bring it here given it is, in my mind, definitely a conduct issue that should be noted and considered. MarcGarver (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe after you addressed their contributions as "stupid stuff" before removing it from the article? I'll put in a note to them to stop this retaliatory wave (it is uncalled for); but would advise you to consider using such words less. Thanks, Lourdes 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Lourdes Thank you for taking time on this, I have explained myself to User:MarcGarver, It was a misunderstanding on my part. I'll be careful with my contributions. Thank you two for showing me where I was wrong. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruption and POV pushing by Procastinater

His revisions are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV-[250]. It goes against the consensus that was achieved on how to best characterize the subject in the lede [251]. His first edit also used a false edit summary of removed disambiguation and he refuses to discuss his edits on the talk page even when pinged [252]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User @Suthasianhistorian8 is engaged in an edit war with me, although he is unable to provide adequate reasoning for his constant reverting, he provides me with a consensus article on the subject, in which there is absolutely no agreement among users. He is engaged in enforcing a biased and hateful, view on an individual who is highly respected and held in high regards by all followers of Sikh religion, I have seen his other edits and warning by admins on disruptive behavior in adding dubious information on articles regarding Sikh history. Added all this, he is constantly spamming warnings on my talk page, without adequate reasoning, I am feeling harassed by this spamming. Kindly review my request, I have mentioned his behavior to a known administrator as well Regards, Procrastinater (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that on top of the RFC [253], it states and was closed with There is a consensus that proposal #1 is better.? I'm not the one who initally added that to the lede.

Can you provide evidence for all your other claims? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Also even if someone was a "revered freedom fighter", Wikipedia would never allow such flowery language to be used on an article, no matter how commendable the subject was, especially not in the lede, that too in Wikivoice instead of attributed to someone. At best, they could be called a revolutionary. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out again. Although i have been nothing but respectful till this point, i feel you are bit agitated. I am more than happy to provide you with evidence for all of my claims. Aside from that, on the subject of flowery language, if you don't like the phrase "revered freedom fighter.", i am more than happy to change it to a revolutionary which be more appropriate than the word militant which is very disrespectful for a man of such caliber. Please ponder upon this without the element of hate and bias. Regards Procrastinater (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work. It needs to be reverted to "militant". Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Southasianhistorian8 This is Wikipedia. This is not your little kingdom where you can spread your propagated information. Procrastinater (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have failed to keep a neutral point of view, as there's not one, but five, sources all describing Jarnail as a militant in the opening paragraph. Instead, you're pushing your own POV, as you have failed to cite a source that backs your argument of Jarnail being a freedom fighter or revolutionary. You are casting aspersions, and have failed to communicate, instead choosing to now be in violation of WP:3RR. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please Review these sources Aswell, all news present on the web is not absolutely authentic. This topic is very controversial, as I promised I will provide authentic sources here are the links, one of them is from Reuters the best news agency.

What is the Khalistan movement and why is it fuelling India-Canada rift? | Reuters

Jarnail Bhindranwale: Slain Khalistani separatist leaders seen in Pakistan’s Kartarpur video: Who were they? | India News (timesnownews.com) Procrastinater (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore you have reverted the article a further two times with this discussion in progress. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree I was wrong here, because i reverted it by accident. It was not intentional. Procrastinater (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Im sure im diving in deep and this is going to get me some pushback, but wouldnt a term like "controversial revolutionary figure" work pretty well here? Googleguy007 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The description as "militant" is more than generous. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is a spurious complaint, because it is Procrastinater who has exhibited WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, not Southasianhistorian8. The warnings are not spam or harassment, but are what's expected for the blatant editorializing that changing an Indian militant to a revered Khalistani Freedom Fighter represents. Procrastinater, it's clear you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and best practices (i.e. WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER), so maybe edit uncontentious topics until you get your bearings...? El_C 05:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is possible that i have by passed few rules purely by mistake, because I am still learning. But my sources and understanding on this Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale are without a shadow of doubt correct. This is not an individual view on Sant Jarnail Sahab. It is widely agreed upon in the Sikh community. This concept of Jarnail Sahab being "militant" is untrue and propagated by the opposition. Just Check Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale - Wikipedia to understand peoples views aswell. This Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale - Wikipedia article has way too many contradictions. Procrastinater (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Procrastinater, the reality is that Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, so learning the basic in contentious areas rarely works out. Are you even aware that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS? Because when Southasianhistorian8 linked that specific consensus discussion for you in their edit summary (diff), but you reverted with un untrue edit summary that read: User:- Southasianhistorian8 engaged in spreading disinformation on this topic, well, that looks bad. And because you're learning the basics in a contentious area, you don't even realize that it looks bad. But it does. It is sanctionable misconduct, in fact. El_C 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It is widely agreed upon in the Sikh community.

Simply put, what a particular community, business, or even individual calls themselves is irrelevant. We go by what independent reliable sources say, so as to have a less biased descriptor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks to be quite obvious POV pushing, followed by backtracking when they got into trouble. Claiming their edit war to be an "accident" is laughable, especially in light of this comment

Southasianhistorian8, Thank you for getting back to me, firstly you got my name wrong on your topic its Procrastinater not *Procastineater*, secondly, you mentioned that community has decided, this is not a political forum that something is decided upon , it is an information platform where things are agreed upon, which is definitely not the case here just check the last 3 headings in the article. Lastly, you mentioned that my edits are reflected upon in the paragraph, which means even you are in agreement with the majority consensus on Baba Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. You are in a constant struggle to garb the truth with hate, in this case it is clear voilation of Wikipedia guideline of conduct policy. Regards,

The mental gymnastics used to justify the POV is astounding.

I think a block might be too severe given that the account is fairly new, and a TBAN from Indian subcontinent might solve the issues. This will also allow them to edit in less controversial areas and possible come back to editing more constructively. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Will You be kind enough to explain how was it mental gymnastics, when i already admitted that it was by mistake Procrastinater (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you above what is wrong with your editing. I agree that it would be better for you to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that are not as political or controversial. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I am assuming you know the meaning of mental gymnastics, (already been explained to you above what is wrong with your editing), I already admitted my mistake, check the whole conversation, i am not playing dumb to the fact that I bypassed some rules. But blatantly accusing me of mental gymnastics is just disingenuous. Procrastinater (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Procrastinater, It would look better for you, in this case, to accept what this community of editors is saying at face value without claiming that anything they are telling you is disingenuous. From what I see they have been patient in explaining the issues without a rush to judgement. Consensus is paramount on Wikipedia. Without it every discussion devolves into shouting matches. Because you are relatively new to Wikipedia and show a willingness to discuss issues I think that's why you see a softer approach here. Don't take that for granted. Accept all criticism. Take that which will help you learn and grow and apply it. Let the rest roll off but don't discount it whether you think it's disingenuous or not. You were wrong this time. It's okay, we've all been there. Don't let it discourage you and don't fight against it. Above all else, move forward, find some other area less contentious to edit in and contribute constructively. The editors here obviously think enough of you to give the opportunity. Use that opportunity wisely. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:XERI MUSIC

User:XERI MUSIC This user is most likely not disclosing paid editing. They have had articles declined multiple times at AFC due to advertising and the like. A draft had been deleted under G11. They have also been told that YouTube is not a reliable source. Note:they have denied paid editing. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This editor has only been active for a few days, and I can't see any evidence that the user name is promotional (searching for "Xeri Music" doesn't come up with a company of that name). I don't see what needs to be done at the moment apart from telling the editor the things mentioned above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User was indeffed by Bb23 as a spam account, and is now posting unblock requests begging to be unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357 is WP:NOTHERE at least for post-1992 American Politics.

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.

---

Philomathes2357 is WP:NOTHERE at least for post-1992 American Politics.

On 18 January 2023, Philomathes2357 was indefinitely blocked by Bishonen for "Edit warring, bludgeoning on talkpages, disrespect for consensus, and an egregious waste of constructive editors' time and patience, which is Wikipedia's most precious resource." [254]

He was unblocked on 25 January 2023 by Bishonen under conditions [The block is lifted on certain conditions, outlined at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philomathes2357&oldid=1135629704#Unblock_conditions and accepted by the user including the standard ArbCom post-1992 American Politics topic ban, broadly construed.

After his return, Philomathes has engaged in egregious violations of Wikipedia conduct that are directly related to the conduct he promised not to engage in to gain unblocking.

Bludgeoning & Forum Shopping

• At Talk: Breitbart News: [255]
• At Talk: The Grayzone: [256]
• At Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view: [257]
• At Wikipedia:Teahouse: [258]
• At Talk:Douma chemical attack: [259]

This bludgeoning also comes with numerous instances of disrespect for consensus and wasting constructive editors' time, including deliberately trying to promote WP:FRINGE or egregiously unusable sources and demanding that other users engage in 'homework assignments', such as gigantic reading projects or engaging in masturbatorial polemics about "epistemology" or arguments about fringe authors such as Noam Chomsky.

Examples:

• Philomathes promoted known cranks and bad-faith actors from the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (aka "Berlin Group 21") WP:FRINGE group at Talk: Douma chemical attack as if it were legitimate reporting. Not one of the sources Philomathes attempted to promote or launder at [260] is viable: most are non-expert and self-published WP:FRINGE sources Philomathes is deceptively attempting to misrepresent and pass off as legitimate.
• Philomathes has repeatedly demanded that anyone who does not echo the WP:FRINGE viewpoints of Noam Chomsky or others disqualify themselves from discussion on pages.[261] [262]

Have you ever read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky? If you haven't, you should. If you have, you should re-read it. In my opinion, those who are not familiar with the book's arguments are not equipped to competently assess the reliability and objectivity of the modern media landscape.

Please be honest with me: are you open to including any of the sources I've brought forward, or am I probably wasting my time? Should I bother presenting other sources, or is my suspicion correct that all of them will be carefully Wikilawyered into the trash bin if they don't fit the current article's narrative? At this point, I feel like the NYT could publish a front-page piece fairly assessing The Grayzone and it would be Wikilawyered into the trash as "undue". Does this conversation have any realistic hope of going somewhere collaborative, or should I just give up now and bring this to the attention of a wider audience?... Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Philomathes at Talk: Douma chemical attack, when confronted with the infirmity of the fake sources, casts aspersions, insults the respondents, and intimates of conspiracy theories. [263][264][265] [266] [267]
• Philomathes at Talk:The Grayzone constantly accuses opponents of "wiki lawyering" [268] and casts aspersions, accusing others of not wanting to improve the article [269].
• Philomathes has also engaged in egregious off-wiki canvassing [270] trying to gather support for his WP:FRINGE, tendentious and disruptive conduct.

This rabbit hole goes far deeper, and much of Philomathes's history has been hidden because of his habit of wiping his user talk page. But the conduct is beyond what the community should be forced to bear. Philomathes2357 is WP:NOTHERE, at least in terms of political topics post-1972, and I propose that at a very minimum the topic ban previously imposed by Bishonen as a condition of his prior unblock be reimposed. I invite other members of the community to submit further evidence in this regard, as I have barely scratched the surface of Philomathes's various insults towards other users and WP:BLUDGEONING or WP:FORUMSHOPPING behavior in this report. UsernameUnderDuress (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@UsernameUnderDuress this belongs at WP:AE as the topic area is a WP:Contentious topic and Philomathes is aware of this. User:Bishonen knows a lot of the background. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

UsernameUnderDuress, there's a problem with your five Toolforge links at the list near the top of your report. I don't even know what Toolforge links are, and I'm getting "Wikimedia Toolforge Error" across the board from them. Why aren't they ordinary diffs, or perhaps section links, as per Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide? Please fix when you move this to WP:AE. Bishonen | tålk 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC).

The issue isn't the links, there's an issue with the toolforge itself at the moment that wasn't present when UUD filed the report. Subdomains, which each tool uses, aren't loading. Just from parsing its parameters (all edits by Philomathes on each of those pages) combined with the header talking about bludgeoning, I'm willing to hazard a guess that it was to illustrate the sheer number of talkpage edits on each of those cases. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Beyond this matter, it's concerning to see toolforge data so often used as even remotely conclusive evidence. It shouldn't. Also sucks that it's often linked, like by the OP, as indistinguishable from diffs (i.e. not piped as toolforge so I know not to click it). Why does this diff not load? Oh, it's sigma.toolforge, of course! El_C 09:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed UUD.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty sure this is a Vizorblaze sock, asking another CU to check also. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vizorblaze Doug Weller talk 13:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  This doesn't take away from the fact the complaints are accurate and there is a time sink, fringe advocacy, and IDHT problem. The failure to respect the causes of previous block and many warnings, and a resumption of the problematic behavior after the block, should result in renewed blocks and/or topic bans. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  And thus we're stuck in what appears to be a pretty common occurrence... A sock has accurately pointed out behavioral issues with a legitimate user... Leaving us in the pickle of addressing the behavioral issues while also maintaining WP:DENY which as I'm sure most have noticed is completely impossible or at least we've never figured out a good way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Valjean, can I convince you to let this particular thread die and consider posting a different one after a waiting period? It might also be better to go to WP:AE, and to find actual diffs. We have a bit of a fruit of the poisonous tree problem here, and it would be nice for responding, uninvolved admin to come at this with less garbage in the way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  One thing to note is that the vast majority of the world rejects the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree, its a foreign concept to most non-American editors. (I once brought it up at a Sockpuppet investigation and a fellow editor said something along the lines of "I am a German and where I am from we have no such nonsense, evidence is evidence") Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The more you know... It's not a perfect fit anyway, and you made the point well while referencing actual policy. , Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

[removed IP comments and blocked]

And yet another IP from Houston. I suggest people ignore them. I’m not sure who is the sockmaster but that’s irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

[removed IP comments]

Doug Weller did in fact tell someone to create an account [91] to file a report like this recently. To immediately jump on someone who followed instructions in good faith is quite concerning as another violation of the required civility for Wikipedia.

Socking is socking. I don't see it as "good faith" to ask questions as an IP of a blocked sock, then create a new sock account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 29 September 2023 (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.

Cambodia–Thailand culture war

This has been a tedious, simmering issue for quite some time, but lately it's becoming a significant annoyance. There seems to be an increasing trend of ultranationalist keyboard warriors being prompted by off-Wiki calls for action to edit articles on topics that demonstrate a shared cultural heritage between Thailand and Cambodia. On the Thai side, it mostly manifests as Khmer heritage denialism (I created the Khom article to briefly explain where their beliefs are coming from), while from the Cambodian side, most of what I've seen is more insidious, like inserting Khmer names prominently into topics primarily related to Thailand. Most of it is from IPs and throw-away SPAs. Some examples:

• Phanom Rung Historical Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Phimai Historical Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steamed curry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I haven't looked into the breadth of affected topics, but I've also seen such bad-faith edits in more obscure articles where they can go unnoticed for months.

I'm not quite sure if there's something that can be done here (or if there isn't a better venue for this type of thing). But I wanted to raise the issue, at least to hopefully have a few more eyes on it. Advice would be appreciated. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy. I love Cambodia and Thailand and have lived in both countries. Not that that makes me an expert, but it does mean that I'm very interested in and familiar with the topic. I'll take a look at this as time allows. Pecopteris (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 - (ab)using admin buttons while deeply WP:INVOLVED

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.

---

A short while ago, Bbb23 closed a thread above, deleting multiple comments and blocking the poster. [271][272][273] Ordinarily this would not be a major concern but the comments indicate that Bbb23 is deeply WP:INVOLVED with the situation. Bbb23's talk page also shows that he has been coordinating editing and communications with the user whose conduct the thread concerned.

While I wish that this did not need to be brought up, using administrator buttons while so deeply WP:INVOLVED is a severe violation of the trust that we as a community place in administrators. Bbb23 appears to be reaching a point of burnout and this sort of conduct is a major symptom that will cause worse issues if left un-addressed. 73.115.148.76 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2023 (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.

Vanguard School (Florida)

Is it appropriate for an editor to put sex crimes on a school article, when there's only an allegation, and it only involves an employee, doesn't involve the school? Thanks! — Jacona (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No it is not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Shaan Sengupta

To whomever it may concern,

I am writing today to file a complaint against Mr. Shaan Sengupta (User:Shaan Sengupta) for obstructionism, notice violation and unretracted accusations.

Revision as of 14:18, 27 September 2023

Revision as of 03:09, 28 September 2023

Notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya Janata Party

Accusation of me being disruptive.

Accusation of spamming when asked to specify.

Mr. Shaan Sengupta took a limited circumstances exemption for notice violation but it couldn't be reasonably applied. He made accusations but the accusations couldn't be reasonably justified. He insisted on "discussion first" repeatedly and claimed the notice mandated it but it does not.

He did not apply the discussion first standard to himself when he made a change.

I started a discussion section (Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party) and was willing to overlook it all provided he come forward with a content related "policies and guidelines" based objection to my edit. I asked for such on 5 occasions total in our back and forth communication across the talk page, my user talk and his user talk.

Finally he says that he is not opposed to what is in my edit.

Since then I have asked him 4 times to either make an objection and if he doesn't whether he was going to revert if I restore the edit but he gave no clear answer.

Finally he indicates that he will continue to revert without giving a content objection.

Therefore I am forced to make this complaint.

It has been about 50 hours since he made his first revert and about 17 hours since the start of the discussion section but neither him nor anyone else has come forward with an objection. He provided policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) to justify his stance of reverting but not giving an objection. But the page itself says that consensus is implicit and presumed unless disputed but he refuses to dispute the edit.

I seek remedial action. Thank you

MrMkG (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of what's happening here—which seems like a content dispute, but it's hard to tell due to mobile diffs being tedious to convert to desktop—I've upgraded the protection for that page, from indef WP:SEMI to indef WP:ECP (overdue). Logged as WP:ARBIND. New and inexperienced users shouldn't be editing the main article. They, however, are weclome to engage the talk page, including with consensus-determining discussions and requests (like a Request for comment), or by submitting simple edit requests. El_C 16:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He is not disputing the content only reverting it. He says "My objection was never about what you added but how you added." In all the messages he never discussed the content after reverting it repeatedly and demanded discussion. I only added references for what was already there. He removed the pre-existing text and also the references.

He also made accusations against me and violated the notice which says no one should make more than 1 revert in 24 hours. MrMkG (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG, you still haven't understood what this is about. This is the reason inexperienced editors are kept away from these topics by the arbitration committee. It is always advised to discuss the dispute with others in every case. Regarding my revert within 24 hours it was because you didn't initiate a discussion ans readded the disputed stuff. So disputed stuff is always removed until consensus to keep it. I will once again say since it is referenced I don't have any issue if the community thinks that it should be added it will eventually be added. As you said that you gained consensus now please see one editor fast registered their different view. Thatswhy I told you to wait for some time so that others can join. Any discussion should go atleast for a week. Although this might not be written anywhere (I am clarifying this because you would again say where is it written), but things should be given time to reach a good amount of people. I would request you to assume good faith and proceed. This won't go any further. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

So all the "policies and guidelines" and the "notices" are overridden by apparently unwritten rules? What is the point of having them then if you don't have to follow them? MrMkG (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG everyone is following it. And those not following are dealt with. @El C please explain him once whether that small disscussion at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party has gained consensus or not. By his replies it seems he won't listen to me. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I spend a good part of my day reading the "policies and guidelines" that you linked to me. But what you yourself say contradicted it. And now I find out that they don't really need to be followed as per written. What was the point of reading them? MrMkG (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I thought he will understand that by simply gaining a consensus he can make it. But here we are. Now the summary of this is that as we always do amd I have been told to is when editing an article of contentious topics first discuss major changes gain consensus and then do so in the article if someone objects. The user wants to add far-right as political position of the Bharatiya Janata Party in its article.

His edits were reverted at Revision as of 22:10, 26 September 2023. This is where @MrMkG needed to start a discussion to resolve another editors concern. But since he is new we can let it go. As reverting editor also didn't ask for it. Then he manually reverts the revert Revision as of 01:41, 27 September 2023. I enter here at Revision as of 19:48, 27 September 2023 clearly asking him to discuss it on talk page first. He ignores my message and once again reverts Revision as of 02:24, 28 September 2023 telling that I message a dubious revert without understanding other editors concern. This is nearly just after the 24-hour period. I re-revert him here once again within 24 hours which is allowed under limited circumstances at Revision as of 08:39, 28 September 2023 because the user didn't bring it to talk page even after being asked to. Then I do some cleanup in the article and remove the term political position because it is invalid parameter in infobox indian political party. I serve him with Template:uw-disruptive2 on his talk page and explain my concerns very nicely. After extensive discussion he then asks me to initiate a discussion and gain consensus. Now I am not able to get that a change he wants to make why should I gain consensus. I am him to do so. Meanwhile another editor starts the discussion at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party. Now he wants me and everyone to believe that this short discussion that has not even happened for a day (remember the discussion to gain consensus is what is being talked, not disput) be termed as consensus. I am not ready to agree on this. I already made my point clear that I am not opposed to anything that is properly sourced. But since this comes under contentious topics, major changes (since it defines political position) should be discussed and be made only after community agrees. Another user wanted to make same change but was advised the same thing by Kautilya3 that I am doing now at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 10#A central right to far right party. I don't understand why is @MrMkG not able to understand this simple thing. I will atlast ask the community is that discussion which is happening arrived at consensus? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C In the mean time we already have an oppose to that discussion. How can it be termed as consensus gained. This is sick. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sick? I don't know what you mean — and why no WP:DIFF attached? Anyway, whatever it is, please avoid hyperbole and any other excesses. El_C 17:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C Sorry for that. I just wanted to say that despite repeatedly telling him that this small discussion can't be termed as consensus gained. He continued to argue that he had gained it. Thatswhy I used that word not for him but for this situation. Anyways I hope he might understand now that contentious topic dispute should always be discussed. Thanks for this advice. I shall work to lessen the expression in words. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I told him here that this is not a consensus.

• Revision as of 16:28, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 17:33, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 17:56, 29 September 2023

His reluctance that he has gained consensus.

• Revision as of 16:51, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 21:36, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 21:42, 29 September 2023

And some more. Anyways since you have already protected I shall rest here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As I told the OP, it's hard to tell [what's happening] due to mobile diffs being tedious to convert to desktop. El_C 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not that hard, it is easy to tell that at least the notice which says you can't make more than 1 revert in 24 hours was overridden by him.

If you read the discussion, you can also tell he never made a dispute. He just kept saying gain consensus without himself discussing the thing he reverted. MrMkG (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forgot to mention that both disputants also violated WP:1RR. In future, please be mindful of that Shaan Sengupta and MrMkG. El_C 17:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG I am repeating I re-revert him here once again within 24 hours which is allowed under limited circumstances at Revision as of 08:39, 28 September 2023 because the user didn't bring it to talk page even after being asked to. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C I will make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not make 2 reverts in 24 hours. I made one at 20:17 26 September and 20:54 27 September. He made one on 14:18 27 September and one on 03:07 28 September. He claimed a special exemption but there is no special exemption in the 8 types that can be applied to it. MrMkG (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What do mean by never made a dispute, MrMkG? Generally, we follow the maxim of WP:ONUS, which states: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. But it isn't immediately apparent which version is the longstanding one here (mobile diffs don't help). El_C 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He reverted but he never opposed what I added. He openly said so. Throughout the discussion he never tried to discuss what I added when I kept asking him to do so. He just kept saying that I need to discuss and get a consensus. But with whom do I discuss if he the one reverting me doesn't discuss? MrMkG (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C I have been telling him this. But you might also feel that he is either not able to or not willing to understand. I told him the same thing multiple times that he should start a discussion but see his latest reply. He has not yet understood that its him who is needed to start the discussion and gain consensus and not me. I have also made it clear multiple times that I am not opposed to your content but opposed to the way you are adding them that is without disscussing. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He once again has modified his comment in amidst the reply despite just being asked not to. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, now they realize such an exemption does not apply, so it's moot. And hopefully, as of now, ditto for you for having waited ~30 min for your 1RR 24-hour cycle, which is usually considered a violation (i.e. WP:GAME). But Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" should definitely be avoided, if that's all there was to it (again again, mobile diffs). El_C 17:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C WP:DRNC point taken. And what you said now I told this too to him multiple times. Once in this too above. That revert made just after 24 hours is also a violation. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adjusting a comment before anyone replies to it, including removing it outright, is fine. Anyway, I can't keep posting here right now. I'm at, like, double digits edit conflicts. It's too much. El_C 17:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C just one request please tell him that consensus is not achieved at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party as he says is achieved. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur. I think it would be best to codify it via a formal consensus-determining discussion (like an WP:RFC) that is properly closed. HTH. El_C 17:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood so you shouldn't revert right after the point you can and yes, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is exactly what he was doing. How am I supposed to do anything if someone does this? For the first 50 hours, there was only me and him and he kept saying "discussion first" so there was no one else for me to discuss with since he himself wouldn't discuss. I am still worried he might persist reverting even if no one objects to the edit. MrMkG (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Another edit conflict? Okay, I'm done now, for real. Addendum was: But that does not necessarily mean your version represents consensus, either, Shaan Sengupta. Again, I don't know which version is the longstanding one and which one is the contending one (again, refer to WP:ONUS). El_C 18:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Man discuss first means that you should start a discussion like the other user started there. You dont need to discuss with someone specific. You just start one and people joined like people are joining there. He never started it with someone. That's what I was asking. You are still focused on some way proving that I am only at fault. I have accepted that I am regarding my revert. Because I had no info about WP:DRNC. You too accepted that you violated by reverting just after 24 hour period because you didn't know about it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I only want assurance that you won't revert if no one else and you yourself are not opposing my edit because then there is no way for me to do anything. MrMkG (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I won't and can't do anything. Since it is already up for discussion Whatever consensus is reached will be done. If not by me then some admin or anyone. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Long standing version had "far right". It was just hidden due to a glitch which I fixed (Desktop diff). I had only added better sources for it after that (Desktop diff) but Mr. Shaan Sengupta removed the references but also the "far right". MrMkG (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the sole reason why it was not removed because it was hidden. Had it been visible it would have been disputed. The moment it was visible it got disputed. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But you only reverted it and didn't dispute it. It didn't get disputed the moment it was visible. MrMkG (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG I am not the only one to remove it. One more guy did before me. After your edit he reverted it the next day which is just after you no gaps. So it was disputed the moment it was added. Anyways it won't lead to anything now sonce its up for discussion. Leave it here. Let the community decide what is to kept and removed. Me and you can't do anything for it. Only consensus will prevail. And now I have made everything clear please stop. Its getting lengthy. We are tired. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He said that a source didn't say "far right". Perhaps he was reading one the sources for "right wing" which was near the same area. So I quoted the one of the sources since they did say "far right" and he didn't do anything after that. MrMkG (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again. Let the discussion happen. Only the decision there will be added. Nothing else. This isn't going anywhere. Please tell me when you are done so I close it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is better left for someone else to close so that the question of long standing version can be considered. MrMkG (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's right, please leave any closures to someone uninvolved. @Shaan Sengupta and MrMkG: courtesy pings. El_C 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User MrOllie

Hello, there's an issue with adding Edward Hayter in the cast of Will (TV series). His name always get removed from the cast even when having his article approved. Tried on MrOllie talk page but it's getting out of hand and while 3 reviewers worked on getting him notable and agrees to approve it. Even if being notable the user is trying to delete his page. I was directed from tea house. (Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC))

Perhaps the tea house advice should have been to consider WP:SPI instead of ANI? The history of Will (TV series) includes multiple single-purpose editors attempting the same addition of Hayter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Theres no suckpuppet there. I tried as well as seen someone else tried to add him until i was told to get him into an article which i had worked on that with help of 4 reviewers who proved his notability. Then one of them added his name to the cast and when i saw the draft was accepted i added back his name without noticing it was already added. Then the user removed all that. But thats not just that they also harassed and accused me of a COI as well as editing with multi accounts which i dont have and even explained it on my user talk. The user is trying to delete the article of Hayter now Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean when i saw there was his name twice, i removed 1 and then the user removed all after Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: That seems to me like an even worse place to pursue this? How would that help them?

As far as I see it, MrOllie said they are going to start a deletion discussion (WP:AfD) for Edward Hayter, so the most appropriate response to at least that part of this is to wait for that discussion to be created, discuss in it and then respect the result. In fact I don't see the attempt at talking with MrOllie as having gotten out of hand, it seems to me that Veganpurplefox just does not know what WP:AfD's are, doesn't know the processes of how to solve disputes and when asking at teahouse got given the not good advice to come here.

SPI and ANI are both not the answer here. – 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

then can someone just help me out and explain the next steps. No one explained this to me and tea house said I should come here. Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, you are obligated to inform MrOllie about the report you made here. Since you have not done so, I have informed MrOllie myself. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know that but thank-you Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You could continue asking for clarification at teahouse. In fact others commented on your question there afterwards: Generalrelative pointed you at WP:DR, the page which documents the dispute resolution policy. The link I just gave you to AfD(WP:AfD) includes a detailed description of all aspects of the discussion process, from creating one to how they are closed and how to contribute to one.

I'll admit that I don't have much experience with either of these things, as I jut avoid them, so I can't help you (and this board isn't for that anyways). But nothing is stopping you from continuing to ask questions at the Teahouse, as long as they are in good faith, that's what the teahouse is there for. Perhaps the person who initially indicated you here just severely misunderstood what was going on.

Just try to approach the dispute and your questions, like it says at dispute resolution: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor".

What I recommend you do in the meantime though, is formally withdraw this report (by commenting saying that you do).

– 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I will go back to tea house then and see their answers Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I still think that Vesyray (talk · contribs) / Vessyray (talk · contribs) are related to Veganpurplefox, (just look at User talk:Vessyray) but I didn't bother with SPI at the time because they seemed to get the message and knock it off after a warning. As to the deletion, I'll most likely start an AFD, but not until I have time to recheck the sourcing. That is the way to resolve this. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If you believe so much that me and that other username are both me then just go compare our IP addresses and you'll see how none of youre allegations against me are true. I only have this account and sometimes forget to login to my account so my IP address appears but that's all accidental. Also, the Will series has been discovered by many Jamie Campbell Bower fans last year bc of his role of Vecna and plenty of fans have made fan edits of that series which is how I discovered Ed because of Jamie kissing Men for his role including Ed. There's a petition to get the series having a season 2(with 2020 signatures). I process to research him and he became one of my fav actors. Then I made a fan account of him which now has hundreds of followers (fansofedhayter), with the Wikipedia links in the bio so anyone could have seen the draft as well as the article accepted. Vesyray and I may have the same interest of the Will series and Ed but we doesn't even have the same writing pattern. I find it wasteful to even start with a "hello..." or end the conversation with "have a good day". While they do that. And why would I have more than 1 account? Aren't Wikipedia a place for everyone contributing???in Wikipedia we can edit all kind of articles from all our interests,while on a website like Instagram we'll I do have plenty ones cause there's my main as well as owning many fan accounts that aren't about the same things so that's fair enough to have multi accounts while here it's not. And I'm autistic so I may be direct but i don't lie. Lying is just make the society worse and get them issues and I don't want to be involved with that. And that's why we, autistics, are never believed cause neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time. Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time Autistic or not, I strongly suggest that you strike that inappropriate personal attack. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You are very much not the only autistic editor on the site, it is no accuse for disruptive editting or making negative personal statements against other groups. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Before this becomes something more than I think it is, I read that statement differently. I don't believe the editor was saying any particular group is lying all the time. That's just how they feel they are looked at being part of that group. It is more a statement of how they personally feel they, being autistic, are viewed by others than a personal view they hold of autistic people. I would caution the editor that WP:AGF is a thing and we need to maintain the approach that every editor is acting in good faith until there is evidence they are not. MrOllie made an assessment based on their perception of what they felt was evidence of a link between the accounts. That is not necessarily proof of anything. I think that would still need to be tested at SPI before action was taken, likewise the AFD process will determine if the article stays on Wikipedia. The best thing for the OP to do is take a deep breathe, trust the process and go edit somewhere else on the project. That was clearly bad advice at the Tea House. This discussion should probably be closed. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you, you interpreted my opinion well. How can i proove it that im not the same user of the other? How can i start to ask them for proof so they now will believe me when i say im not the same user cause im really tired of being accused of things i havent done. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I need someone to compare our IP addresses so people will believe me now Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox it's okay, you don't need to prove that you are not the same as the other user. No one has blocked you as a sockpuppet. It's irritating to be accused of being a sockpuppet, but if you aren't one, that's all it is - irritating. Just keep editing as normal. Like ARoseWolf, my advice is that you edit articles you aren't hyperfocus-level interested in for a while. It will be easier to learn how Wikipedia editing works this way, without ending up in conflicts like this that become emotional for you because you care a lot about the topic. Once you know more about how Wikipedia editing works, it will be easier to go back to the topics you care about and edit on them in a productive way. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I read we, autistics, are never believed cause neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time as an unambiguous, and demonstrably false, statement that people like me are unremitting liars. I suppose, ARoseWolf, that we'll just have to disagree on that being a personal attack against an entire group of people. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But if it is true that they themselves are autistic, and I don't know that to be a fact just assuming good faith, I don't see the point in them calling themselves a liar. That's why I tried to look at it from a different perspective and came to the conclusion they were saying that they feel others look at them, as part of a group, that way. There are all kinds of stereotypes in this world. I face them regularly for my struggles and I have lashed out at those stereotypes in a lot the same way before. I still think they should be careful doing so and your statements on how you read what was said is not unwarranted, I just understood them differently taking everything in context. It would still be better for them to strike the statement because regardless of which of us is correct it has had an affect on fellow editors. --ARoseWolf 15:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Very clearly, as pointed out, I misunderstood what was written. That statement is a personal attack and should be struck through and not repeated. Whether that's what was intended or not I agree with JoJo. --ARoseWolf 16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

noting for the record that the teahouse thread in question is Wikipedia:Teahouse#Issue with cast, and the person who suggested to come here is @thealienman2002. ltbdl (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

IEEE book added as a refernce to Artificial Neural Network page

Today I added a reference to the Wikipedia page: Artificial neural Networks. The reference is a book with 366 pages published by the IEEE. There are numerous authors and editors involved with that book and it is a good reference material. The editor MrOllie removed that reference outright without any reasonable explanation. I started a dialog on his talk page User_talk:MrOllie wondering why he removed that reference. I specifically pointed out that references 155-188 in that section of the article are all single source references (some simply conference papers without proper peer review). Why is it that, as an editor, he is letting those single source references stay and has deleted the book reference I had added in? He failed to provide a logical explanation and nor did he point out which internal rule(s) within Wikipedia states that multiple single source unvetted references take priority over a book that has been published by the IEEE. He only made biased and prejudicial persoanl statement such as "You are very focused on getting particular citations and books into Wikipedia..." and "You must learn how things are done here...", with no regards or respect for the merits of what I had done. I submit that this editor is judgmental, biased and prejudicial. I note on this Talk page there are a number of similar complaints along the same lines. I respectfully request a review of this situation and final decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writingking (talk • contribs)

References

The warnings you received were valid, Writingking. That link constitutes WP:PROMO. Please do not restore. Please sign your user name + timestamp (See WP:SIG). You also mis-linked the article, which is Artificial neural network. Please use H:PREVIEW prior to submissions. Finally, you need to do something other than continuing to add that Amazon link for that book. Thanks. El_C 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's all by Mehrdad Nikoonahad. Conflict of interest disclosure is needed, then. I'll post that to your talk page momentarily. El_C 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand! What is by Mehrdad Nikoonahad? What conflict of interest. this book is not by Mehrdad Nikoonahad. The full reference to the book is given. Writingking (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Nikoonahad wrote that book's chapter on medical ultrasound, as you well know. He also wrote almost every other citation you've been trying to add to Wikipedia. And you've been editing the biographical article on him. You know this, the conflict of interest has been pointed out on your user talk page by four different editors now. MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The book has 366 pages with about 50 chapters covering numerous topics in paradigms, applications and hardware implementations of neural networks. The publication date of the book is 1992. There are two issues here: Firstly I don’t see why you are fixated on Nikoonahad’s work! Even if he wrote a chapter of the book, so what? There are numerous other chapters in the book of significant value written by many other authors with editors involved. Secondly and perhaps more importantly you are patently wrong as Nikoonahad did not write that chapter on Medical Ultrasound. IEEE reprinted it in their book with permission from Nikoonahad’s earlier work in 1990. If you have time to read the book, you will see that it says so in the book.

You are not addressing that in that section of the article that there are numerous single sourced articles (some simply conference papers without proper peer review) and instead are abscessed that this book may have something to do in some remote and in some indirect fashion with Nikoonahad! This is respectfully absurd, biased and prejudicial. Writingking (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that a sample of refs you added to various pages all seem show Mehrdad Nikoonahad as author. Again, please answer the conflict of interest disclosure I've placed on your talk page. Direct link: User talk:Writingking#Managing a conflict of interest. El_C 22:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree I mislinked Artificial neural network. My bad. Is there anyway I can correct it? The book was published before the internet became commen place. It is available in most libraries in hardcopy form but very little is available on the internet except Amazon and few otehr places where they sell the book. Writingking (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That does not address the WP:PROMO and WP:COI concerns, see above. El_C 22:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. I don’t know the editors of the book and nor am I a salesman trying to sell a book for the IEEE, so I don’t understand the PROMO thing! As I mentioned this is a “pre-internet” valuable scientific reference in Artificial Neural Network with numerous topics in paradigms, applications and hardware implementations of that technology. I am seriously concerned that the editor herein deleted this reference but let stay 10+ single sourced references (some of which simply unvetted conference papers) present in the article. Writingking (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Writingking has answered the COI question on their page also. In view of the information above and on the user's page about the way their editing as a whole promotes a particular individual, I find it impossible to believe their denials. I've blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 04:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC).

Talk page abuse

Pin Scrabble has repeatedly posted content to their talk page that is WP:NOTWEBHOST material ([274], [275], [276], [277], [278]), despite multiple notices/warnings. I'm requesting that they be blocked as WP:NOTHERE and have their talk page access revoked immediately, as that's where they are posting. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Pin Scrabble#Indefinite block. El_C 17:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

They've continued adding WP:NOTWEBHOST content to their talk page after being blocked. Please revoke TPA. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 16:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Another undisclosed paid editor

Chad theking62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another user that has created pages on non-notable stuff. They also indirectly mentioned that they are creating the pages for promotion.--24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks connected to User:Cjrlabels who was blocked for promo Secretlondon (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the user contribution and well,  Looks like a duck to me. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The two accounts are  Confirmed -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Curbon7 and inflammatory statements, personal attacks, bad faith, and refusal to discuss those problems

• Curbon7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While discussing a nomination in ITN, I posted a comment which Curbon7 apparently took issue with, who told me, directly, quote, "Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass".

When I advised them to strike that comment, they responded with "no ... you know where to go" and linked to this very page, an outright call for me to write up this report about it. If anything's going to show that any sort of dispute resolution isn't going to work with them involved, it's that -- unwilling to even discuss the comment, simply points me here instead.

Furthermore, they told me I was being racist, saying: "I'd highly recommend you read systemic racism to see why I take such issue with your comment".

(For the record, my supposedly "racist" comment was me pointing out the Oscars are the largest film awards for the largest and only global film industry, while an Indian film award was for the Indian film industry with films mostly not in English.)

A repeated violation of WP:AGF , a WP:PA, and instead of trying to resolve the situation they simply told me to report them for it; doesn't look like it's going to be resolved through bilateral discussion then?

(P.S. I'm a relatively new user and this is my first use of this Wikipedia feature so feel free to help me out if I'm doing anything wrong here.) JM2023 (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant to link to systemic bias, not systemic racism (which is a redirect). That is a big mistake on my part, so sorry about that. Regardless I don't think it changes the meaning that much; I neither implied nor stated that you're personally biased or racist, rather I pointed you there because your comment, specifically the phrase how many films at these awards were in English or known outside India, unintentionally falls into that category: Although we are the English-language Wikipedia, we cover global topics, no matter if they are from non-Anglo-speaking places; hence, my full original comment being Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass that this is not a primarily English award.

All that said, apologies for frustration on my end, some comments in that thread had quite irked me (especially this). Curbon7 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Daikido (72 hours) for their subpar conduct at WP:ITN, which I refuse to let be as some kind of a free-for-all: User talk:Daikido/Archives/2023/September#Block. Anyway, I don't know why all the OP's diffs are broken for me, but I read that thread indent. And I think that, in light of its content, and taking into account Curbon7 explanation and apology, a warning to take a pause when things get heated, suffices. An approach which would be more effective at countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, at the least. El_C 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I get the impression said user is trying to speedrun a permaban. 5 days ago he voted to delete a BLP article purely on the basis of the subject being obviously a crypto-communist or a crypto-russian (there were certainly legitimate arguments to vote delete, but that's not one of them). I hope the 72 hour block helps him clear his head a bit. Ostalgia (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if it matters much but in the unlikely event an unblock of Daikido is considered, I'll mention I'm not even sure if that's the worse comment Daikido left in relation to that. He was notified about his !vote being removed and left this reply [279]. Note that the "ukrainian-canadian veteran who fought against the orcs" is surely Yaroslav Hunka [280]. Hunka was honoured in the Canadian parliament recently something which eventually lead to the resignation of the speaker, and for the Canadian prime minister to say it was deeply embarrassing [281] since it turned out Hunka was a part of the Waffen SS Galizien a unit which as with many Nazi units, committed war crimes. As you might guess this means the "witch-hunt" Daikido refers to may have included the subject of that AFD, but it also included the the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies along with numerous Jewish groups; and of course both the PM of Canada and the former speaker of parliament. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I had not seen that. I guess nothing was lost with the indef, then. Ostalgia (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Eh, Curbon7 is among the most level-headed and competent folks, I have seen in the project and his explanation is quite sensible. There's no need of any warning. That said, Daikido ought to be indeffed - this is beyond-the-pale behaviour. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I stand by the (un-logged) warning for the reasons stated. Sorry, all, forgot to mention that I indeffed Daikido last night with TPA revoked. See the link I provided above (I'll bold for emphasis). El_C 21:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C: Good block, this has been building up for a while. I was wanting to report his behavior but felt like his instances of disruption were way too far apart timing-wise to build a case with. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, WaltCip. I just want to put the following out there: if anybody sees users behaving poorly at WP:ITN, especially in a ways that fall well outside standards elsewhere on the project — please drop me a line. I do not give a fuck and will block WP:UNBLOCKABLES, if needed. El_C 22:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Easy @El C:. A warning first is appreciated by everyone no matter how long they have been on this project, block first is not policy and not best practice. IDGAF is not good language to use when working on an encyclopedia either. Lightburst (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. El_C 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, no worries with that; I should not have come down like a ton of bricks on a newer good-faith editor. Countering systemic bias is something I'm quite passionate about both on- and off-Wiki, and that passion got the better of me in that instance. Will be more mindful going forward. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. For sure, that (countering) is commendable. And your reflection and introspection does you credit. El_C 23:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thirty citations needed templates in just over a half hour

Posted by Badboyxx (talk · contribs), a virtually new editor. Most of the articles don't appear to be poorly sourced, and there's been no response to my question here [282]. No edit summaries, no explanations. It looks like someone was going down an alphabetical list and randomly tagging. Any thoughts about a mass reversion? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You brooched

Why was this escalated here when you broached this issue on the user’s talk page maybe four hours ago? Additionally, you are required to notify the user when you file a complaint against them here, which you have not done. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not an escalation--user sanctions are not sought, but an inquiry is being made for administrative input. Secondly, I informed the user of this report immediately. In what way is your comment intended to be helpful? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies; you did post the required notification. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's cool. Have a look at their edits and see what you think. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In truth, some of them look legit. But that sort of rapid drive-by template addition raises a flag, all the more so from an inexperienced editor. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of articles that need cn and bsn. Is it a problem to note them? Malibu Sapphire (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

We could pick any thirty articles randomly, and half of them would merit sourcing templates. But any editing done without discernment--including haphazard application of templates--is disruptive. And having a fifty, or even seventy-five percent success rate, is not acceptable. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles don't appear to be entirely random. A significant proportion of them start with the letters 'ab', and appear to have been edited largely in alphabetical order. From a quick look, much of the tagging looks entirely undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that's DEFAULTSORT order and the editor was working through a maintenance category such as Category:All articles lacking reliable references, maybe specifically those with a single {{Unreliable source?}} tag, however many other good references they have. Tagging them with {{More citations needed}} is clearly inappropriate. NebY (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm seeing, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Badboyxx clearly is not a new user - Gaming autoconfirmed by making 10 edits adding commas 1 at a time, heading off to a wikipedia related article (Everipedia) to delete information related to Molly White, running what seems to be an unauthorised bot to perform some terrible clean-up tagging, I suspect we've seen this person before. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that they've been blocked on wikidata as an LTA. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

DrHunsuayHuaken

As described under #Cambodia–Thailand culture war above, DrHunsuayHuaken (talk · contribs) (and 2001:44C8:42B9:4E4E:6D92:C4D:9A00:BCAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is one such bad-faith editor persistently disruptively editing to push a WP:FRINGE POV based on the denialism of the existence of the Khmer Empire, which is unaccepted by reliable sources. Reported to AIV but declined by User:HJ Mitchell, who suggested raising the issue here instead.

Their username is also a violation of policy on profanities in usernames, as it's Thai wordplay translating approximately to "c*ckwad Hun Sen". --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account for a week, and the /64 IP range for a month. Any possibility of assuming good faith evaporated whwn I found that the editor had repeatedly changed the title of a cited source to give the impression that the source supported their version, whereas in fact it supports the version they were edit-warring to remove. If the problem resumes I will be willing to consider the possibility of1 an indefinite block. I have not been able to confirm what you have said about the username, Paul_012, but if that is true it would be further reason to incline towards an indefinite block. JBW (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Regarding the name, it's indirect and so rather hard to conclusively demonstrate to those unfamiliar with the language. Boing! said Zebedee is the only (former) admin I know who's familiar with Thailand and currently somewhat active, but I'm not sure if they're fluent enough with the language to help. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Afraid not, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nichole Ouellette accusing me of vandalism at Talk:Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade

Nichole Ouellette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has done multiple edits that break multiple MOS guidelines (such as on this page, this one, this one, this one), and when I reverted one of them, they started crying vandalism. I sent them a message, but I feel like them crying vandalism (and there's also copyright issues, so it's not just that) is egregious enough that it warrants the drama boards. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nichole, there has been no vandalism here, but a disagreement about the content of the article. Please discuss it at Talk:Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade without any accusations against anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Meters repeatedly harassing with baseless WP:PA allegations, refuses to explain

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2&oldid=1178012449

This user is continuing to harass me on my talk page, despite being unable to explain which comment violated WP:PA last time he posted on my page (the section immediately preceding). Meters has engaged in a campaign of ad hominem and harassment against me, seemingly in response to my issues with an obscure article about unmarked graves at Canadian residential schools. I need administrative assistance as I do not know the best way to handle abusive editors. Can I block these people from interacting with me somehow? 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I don't have control over the IP of my mobile device (and don't have a Wi-Fi connection at home), but I am the same user listed at the IPV6 above terminating in E8E2. 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe Meters is possibly mistaking the abusive posts by @Pbritti as my own? And I think maybe the conduct in this talk page section might need a look too... It seems there is a concerted effort to flame bait here or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#Why_are_Church_Arsons_listed_under_%22Reactions%22?

Regards 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Last thing, per Meters' comments on my talk page, I will not leave a notice or ping them here. I am unable to do so, they've locked their talk page and expressly asked me not to contact them again (despite continuing to place baseless WP:PA warnings on my talk page). 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is 206.45.2.52 block-evading and trolling. Also, they failed to notify Meters of the discussion. I'll do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked 6 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Prepared a long response, but range block seems to have eliminated the need. Meters (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll hang on to a copy of my ec for awhile in case anyone has any questions. Most of the edit history does not show up on the range-blocked OP's 2605:b100:111d:e1d3::/64 The editor was originally on a different range at 2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but specifies above that they are the same user. Meters (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This block range doesn't affect the OP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like it does - it will affect all IP addresses starting with 2605:b100:111d:e1d3. Am I missing something? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not sure whether it will be effective, assuming they're the same person on 2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2. The block would need to cover at least the /44 range to catch both of those addresses. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating an SPI to document this case, making it easier to deal with further socks and reduce the time suckage. One of the earlier IPs was clear about returning with socks [283] [284] [285] and it seems as if they meant it. Meters (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0

• 2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• She's So High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 has been changing Tal Bachman's identification on "She's So High" from a singer-songwriter to a "one-hit wonder". This term is not mentioned anywhere in "She's So High" nor on Bachman's bio page, and I have not seen another occurrence where an artist is described as a "one-hit wonder" in the opening sentence of an article. The user is reverting me, claiming I am introducing "original research". I believe mentioning a person's career path is a WP:SKYBLUE case unless the term is debatable or has challengeable connotations, such as "one-hit wonder", which, once again, is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong but "singer-songwriter" does sound BLUESKY, or if someone is challenging it then it shouldn't be hard to reference if true. The same of course applies to "one-hit wonder". Have you though of engaging the editor on the talk page? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

They haven't responded to any warnings I've given them, and it's not my burden to source someone else's claims. Even so, I don't understand how "one-hit wonder" can accurately describe a person. Some people don't know what a one-hit wonder is, but almost everyone knows what a singer is. I don't think we need to establish the fact Bachman is a one-hit wonder in the opening sentence, especially when we consider the fact that he isn't a one-hit wonder in Canada, where he had another top-40 hit (see number 31), at least not in my eyes. Where do we draw the line with what constitutes a one-hit wonder? Seems subjective to identify someone as that so early in the article. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

One-hit wonder is a widely-understood term, and, if it is poorly understood by the reader, there is an extremely helpful link to an article on the phenomenon on wikipedia. I can't imagine how it could be made more clear. Additionally, the idea that One-Hit Wonder can't accurately describe a person is frankly bizarre. If that person is a musician, and their musical act had one real hit, it applies to them. If it can't apply to a person, then it's a completely meaningless phrase.

A fairer argument is that he's not a one-hit wonder in Canada, but I'd say the colloquial meaning of the term still applies. Arguing that no, he also had modest success with a single other song which received essentially zero international attention is I think hairsplitting.

I think that I responded quite nicely to your 'warnings' by explaining my thinking in reverting your bizarre edits. 2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that describes him as a one-hit wonder? NebY (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

These are all great questions for the talk page, which hasn't been editted since May 2020. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Victuallers and misuse of the admin tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further to this comment, I've gone ahead and bolded the sentence "Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all" in the header of WP:REFUND. Victuallers, could you kindly confirm that you understand the potential problems with ignoring that advice, and that you will take care not to repeat that particular mistake? And that if for some (inconceivable) reason it's imperative to undelete a copyvio, you will be sure to clean and revdelete it immediately? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers:, I think its implicit in me calling it a mistake. But I'm happy to explicitly confirm that I see why it was a mistake and the need to clean up. I'm happy to help with the CCI. I'm in a Wikipedia training session at the moment, but I'll get on to it. HTH Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comment was intended to communicate that Fram's first post when he came here looking for help indicated that he believed there were grave issues that needed to be addressed.

>"perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient?" Fram requested help with coaching. What has he already communicated about that didn't get a response or a behavior change, and what would he like reinforced by other people? jengod (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see from your edit summary @Bishonen that you actually think I used AI

to write that comment? LOL and I strongly deny the accusation! The only time I've ever touched such a thing was at my kid's birthday party they coaxed me to give ChatGPT and I asked it to write a Wikipedia article on cienegas of California and it did a meh job. The kids told me I gave it too long a prompt tho. jengod (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What I would like is that other people take a look at their edits (e.g. by removing the autopatrolled right) so I no longer have to inform an admin about copyright violations, the need for attribution and how to do it, that machine translations shouldn't be trusted (or used), ... and that I no longer get the feeling that I'm the only one looking at their sometimes very poor creations (e.g. recently I tried to clean up one paragraph of one of their creations, here, correcting 5 factual errors and some other stuff. I see now that in doing this, I introduced one capitalization error though...). Fram (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram

• Oh my gosh I didn't even know we had a policy against machine translations. I have quoted from a Google Translate version in at least two articles bc I didn't know better! (noting inline that the quotes were machine-translated, of course). A nice polyglot came along and did a proper human translation in one case that made it to DYK, but for all I know my sentence from Swedish on my leopard-trainer article is completely goofily wrong. Do we have a translation helpdesk instead? Or what are we supposed to do if we're monolingual idiots (such as myself) but found a reference to a topic we're covering in a non-English source?
• "the need for attribution and how do to it" - in what way? Like I assume things in new articles created by Vic are referenced...but wonky somehow?
• Copyvios should just be deleted, right?
• Have you tried tagging inline and at the top as a form of editorial commentary? When someone puts a critical tag on an article I'm emotionally attached to I usually jump right on fixes if I see any hope of fixing the problem at my current level of expertise. Judicious editorial criticism is the most precious thing in the world to a writer. We can be trained, I swear!
• What about looping in WikiProject reviewers with project tagging? Or a note on talk page? I know that's slower than we'd all like but no one should be working on any part of Wiki in a vacuum, it's a team project, we all make each other better, etc etc.

jengod (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vis à vis User:Justlettersandnumbers: Copyright issues; but alerting Victuallers is 'silly [and] nagging'. Also [286]. No brainer. Pull his autopatrolled right. A shame that an editor as supposedly experienced as him needs to be treated this way, but you see, he puts quantity ahead of quality. See UP. Their understanding of INVOLVED was also questioned some time ago. SN54129 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are being unfair here. Quality is so important that it should never be confused with quantity. Alerts to errors are important, as is fixing them, and they are responded to. I think you are drawing unfair conclusions. Victuallers (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't autopatroller bundled with admin rights? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I see that it's not, but that admins can grant the right to themselves without discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It used to be bundled, but was removed following an RfC in December 2021. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's preferable to occasionally delete redirects with little-to-no history when creating a new article. If it's of interest to nobody, then "move over redirect from draftspace" is okay. The more work done in draftspace, the more of a claim you have to be the "page creator". You deserve it. SWinxy (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Autopatrolled user right

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

---

There's been some suggestions above that Victaullers' Autopatrolled right be revoked or otherwise reviewed, so I am opening this sub-discussion. I have no strong feeling on the matter but it is reasonable to have a discussion-- I reviewed Victaullers' article creations over the summer as part of a CCI request Fram submitted. I was planning on declining the CCI as the violations were too small and sporadic to warrant a lengthy review for copyright issues. However, Fram raised issues regarding source-to-text integrity and factual errors that I thought might be appropriate for review at ANI. I got busy with other stuff before I could action this though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"planning on declining the CCI" ?? I'm confused. The CCI investigation was refused. Is there another? At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it. The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views. My quick request about "coaching" said "Coaching is a partnership between coach and client" - we shouldnt misuse the word here. I'm not sure that anyone has ever become a successful coach by insisting that they need to be involved. Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers Sorry, I left out the detail about the CCI already being declined. I was planning on declining it and then opening a discussion in a different venue, but I got busy with other stuff and it was declined by someone else before I could do this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to WP:AGF on Victuallers deleting redirects, but restoring a copyvio article without removing the infringing text is hard to do. I wasn't able find evidence of any further errors on Victuallers' part, but a thorough review may be needed. Until then, I am undecided on whether to revoke Autopatrolled status. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That was my mistake - I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the issues listed above, there are things like using unreliable sources (e.g. here), making basic factual errors (e.g. [287]), even reintroducing wrong WP:OR claims after they have been corrected ([288] and [289]). General cleanup is often necessary as well[290][291]. These are just some examples from the few articles I touched during NPP, I skipped a lot of them to avoid giving the impression of harassment. Fram (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Revoke Per above. There are too many issues, too frequently, with too much concern for quantity over quality; V. would probably find it, after all, easier to follow summary style and attribution if he wasn't currently trying to write an article about a woman every day again. He would also be able, after 16 years, to adhere to copyright policy, which would be nice. SN54129 13:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke I concur. There have been too many issues that would have been more quickly and easily corrected had V not granted themselves autopatrolled. Time to put the training wheels back on. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke but doesn't go far enough. Revoking autopatrol, with a statement in the close of this discussion that Victuallers should not re-grant it themself, will help with the issues Fram mentions in their post of 7:51 on 26 September, which makes a good case that Victuallers' articles need to be examined at NPP. But questions of admin conduct have been raised, and revoking autopatrolled has no bearing on that. There's disagreement here over the redirect deletions, but I believe it's important to maintain the policy of keeping speedy deletion for uncontroversial deletions. From the perspective of an admin, who automatically sees the deleted edits in a history, it may seem that deleting a redirect that was once an article with a short history is inconsequential, but it's not completely uncontroversial, as this discussion indicates. And a distinction should be made between deletion to make way for mainspacing of an article that's been through examination at AfC (by a separate editor who's been vetted for the filemover right; and often, perhaps usually, the redirect being deleted originally related to a previously deleted article, or a mainspace article that was draftified), and an administrator deleting a redirect to move their own new article over it. Why? That's not a housekeeping edit. Either expand the redirect to create the new article (which is what I would do) and watchlist it, or if the new article itself has a significant and overlapping history, do a history merge. @Victuallers: Can you please explain what you meant by At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it.? I don't see anyone here objecting to your creating new articles (and I personally don't care at all if you choose to do one a day, or believe that that precludes making them adequately referenced, accurate, copyvio-free, and otherwise ready for mainspace), and I don't see any criticism here leveled at anyone with whom you collaborate. Accordingly, when I first read it, that sentence read to me like a strange assumption of bad faith. And have I missed your responding to the issue of your deletions in order to replace existing redirects with your own articles? Under the principle of admin accountability, I was hoping that when you responded here, you would address that issue; and I don't see a remark insinuating that people's objection is to your creating articles as being a satisfactory response. What am I missing or misinterpreting? I do see you apologizing (in your response to Scorpions1325) for undeleting the copyvio, but again, what do you mean by I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously? Who deleted it is plainly visible in the log; if I remember correctly (it's been a long time since I had the admin goggles) you would have seen it as a line in the article history; and things are deleted by named admins, not by anons. If you meant "in response to tagging by a drive-by IP", it doesn't matter who tagged something for speedy deletion unless one wants to take it up with them, or even whether it was tagged first; the really important thing is the criterion/speedy deletion category, and the second most important which admin actioned it, in case there's a need to discuss whether the criterion was applicable. Again, could you please clarify how you missed that the text was deleted as copyvio? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• @Yngvadottir: In response to your first ping I meant "The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views." The contention is that the articles need to be patrolled... but they are. They may not be seen by patrollers but they are seen, read and improved by well respected editors whose names can be found in the edit histories of "the articles" (that it is suggested need to be auto-patrolled). When you said "in response to tagging by a drive-by IP" thats exactly what I meant. Your comments are helpful in outlining my mistake. Which is what I meant, when I said it was a mistake. Can I add that your presumption that I might change my own rights appears to me as bad faith. Victuallers (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke and no self-granting, given the issues raised above, this is essentially a warning to tighten up the quality of editing. starship.paint (RUN) 15:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke without comment on anything else. I'm not sure I agree with all of Grams diffs, but there is enough there and still there after given the section below for concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

These diffs above pleased to see we don't have quantity, but is each one of them evidence?

1. here "using unreliable sources" (really?) Katherine Davidson's gravestone "records that she was one of the first three deaconesses and her work with the guild and Scotland's fisher girls." I made reference to a photograph of the stone and made attribution as per cc licensing rules. "A photograph of a gravestone" is a useful reference. If the image had been freely licensed then it would have been in the article! The photo was in line with making a judgement about whether a source is good enough for the role it is being used for. We don't stop blogs being referenced on Wikipedia because we allow editors to make a judgement about whether they are reliable enough and add value. Fram deleted the adequate reference and the text that was referenced is now uncited. No edit war, but I don't believe this was an improvement and another editor might have left it as it was. Is this quoting unreliable sources, or is there some miscasting?
2. [292] Another edit debate was over whether Winifred Brown "was the first or the only woman to win the King's Cup air race (in 1930)". The text said she was first woman (in 1930) or "She was the only woman to win the King's Cup air race (in 1930)". There was no "original research". I have no knowledge or opinions about 1930 aviators and the suggestion that I might be floating original research is fanciful. Fram did correct the text with a ref. and that was a useful improvement. Characterising this as WP:OR is however hyperbole.
3. (see diff above) Esther_d'Hervart was publised and it wasn't a good article. It was a start. The article was improved by Fram from a start article ... to a start article. Well done. If he hadn't then I or someone else would have done so.. and we will, and do improve articles, see below. Encyclopedia Brittanica succeeded because it published near perfect articles. This is not how Wikipedia works.
4. Jane Baldwin (see diff above) was published at 12:19, 5 July 2023‎. 11 minutes later a date was corrected. Well done.
5. (see diff above) Winifred Brown was written on 17th July last year and as a new article it was added to the Women in Red editathon page where new articles are reviwed. After it was first published by myself it was editted by @Tagishsimon, FeanorStar7, Paradise Chronicle, PeterWD, Afernand74 and Fram: in the first week. It was reviewed by at least by Ipigott, Paradise Chronicle and RFD. The start article became a B and 12,000 people viewed it in the first year. One of the editors and reviewers decided to bring that article as an example of my editting to here. Do the others agree? If I am being accused of valuing quantity above quality then I think we need to look behind the quality of a diff's characterisation rather that the quantity of them. There are other examples including one where another editor had to repair the damage Victuallers (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Above and in your response to me, They may not be seen by patrollers but they are seen, read and improved by well respected editors whose names can be found in the edit histories of "the articles", you appear to be relying on fellow editors to clean up for you. The autopatrolled right is specifically for editors whose articles almost never require such clean-up. NPP isn't just for new editors or editors whose content has been problematic in the past; it's a general check. And of course it doesn't interfere with anyone else performing gnome fixes on your new articles, or otherwise improving them. Nor does it imply any negative assumptions about the notability of the topics, or you and editors you often collaborate with. It's the default initial check, no more no less. And while I'm here, I'll ask again more bluntly: why have you been deleting redirects when you create a new article, and do you intend to stop doing so, since there is not agreement here that such deletions are uncontroversial and/or desirable? There is an accountability issue here, and I'm personally more concerned with that than with the flaws in your articles, since those can be fixed by any editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (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:Deb's Application of WP:A7 at Chuck Tollefson

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

With lessons learned, etc., this matter seems to be resolved, with no further action needed. If I missed anything or if anyone otherwise disagrees, feel free to re-open. El_C 02:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Deb notified here

• Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chuck Tollefson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deb, one of our longest running editors and admins, recently unilaterally deleted an untagged Chuck Tollefson with the following justification: A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). This version was the one that was deleted. BeanieFan11 requested undeletion on Deb's talk page here, noting that the article made two credible claims of significant or importance: this person played in the NFL for three seasons and was part of an NFL Championship team. Deb responded by draftifying the article and responding to BeanieFan11 by saying Articles must explain what makes the person notable and this one didn't - no mention of championships or anything else. I've put it in draft for you to work on. (diff) I stumbled upon all of this from WP:PACKERS's assessment log. Noting that the article clearly didn't meet WP:A7, I moved the article back into the mainspace and added a source. Noting back to Deb's talk at User talk:Deb#Chuck Tollefson, I commented to Deb here and here that this was a bad A7 deletion. Deb's response was a bit shocking. She doubled down on the deletion, saying "No refs" was not the speedy deletion criterion, which was A7 - requiring a credible claim of importance. Without refs, it's not credible, and I've spent a long time looking for the notability criteria for American footballers - if you know of any, please let me know where they are. (diff) This obviously runs blatantly against what WP:A7 says, which is The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When I pointed this out to Deb, her response was evasive and avoided the point. I asked again and here just for acknowledgement that the deletion was not valid under A7 and Deb would not acquiesce.

Look, I have made bad deletions before. All admins have, and when we do we typically undelete and apologize. But honestly I am shocked by how bad Deb is interpreting WP:A7 and how much they are doubling down on that bad interpretation. I don't have time to dive into logs, but a quick glance of Deb's talk page shows a lot of deletion activity. I want to make sure that they are interpreting and applying our deletion policy appropriately, both to avoid harming the project but more importantly not biting new users. Deb encouraged me to bring this to a larger audience, and WP:AN/I seems like the most appropriate place. Would some uninvolved admins provide their input on this discussion? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I am a bit surprised that Gonzofan2007 hasn't mentioned that immediately after BeanieFan11 pointed out the problem to me, I realised I had been hasty in my response and I went to his talk page where I apologised and explained further. S/he seemed prepared to make improvements to the article, which by then I had already undeleted and put into draft. I recognised later that I should have put it somewhere else. Deb (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Deb, I honestly didn't know. I'm glad you did. But again, this is here because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:A7. Again, your comment on BeanieFan11's talk page reiterates this misunderstanding: When I checked, it did mention a championship, but without any references. It can be difficult for non-US contributors to understand the ins and outs of US sports, so his significance needs to be more clearly stated. Again, you are misinterpreting policy. It was a 15 year old article about a professional American football player who won a Championship. There was no way this was eligible for A7, even a cursory read of the article makes that easily known. Also, if you so clearly lack any understanding of American football, then you shouldn't be unilaterally deleting untagged articles in that area. I have zero understanding of cricket and what makes a cricketer notable. And thus, I have never deleted an article for A7 on a cricketer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • In the mean time, I have significantly expanded Chuck Tollefson. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I think "won a world championship" is a pretty easily understandable assertion of notability regardless of the sport. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd add that I thought moving to draft was only supposed to be done for new articles (<6 months)? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would agree that that's not a good use of A7, which is more for the types of articles like "Mark Johnson plays in his town's garage band" and that's all of the content. Or if it's gibberish or nonsense or something. Any actual indication of notability, sourced or not, disqualifies A7 from applying. Silverseren^C 00:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Pedantry. [G]ibberish or nonsense is G1, not A7. Folly Mox (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. In Deb's apology on BeanieFan11's talk page (diff linked above), Deb conceded that it was a wrong application of A7, and the explanation was that It can be difficult for non-US contributors to understand the ins and outs of US sports, so his significance needs to be more clearly stated. However, significance was in fact clearly stated. And I don't think that one needs to have an interest in American football (I don't) to notice that the text indicates significance (I would not think that it fails to make a claim of significance despite my lack of interest in American football). So this all comes down to testing one's initial impression that a claim of significance is missing a little bit harder, by doing a Google search or two, or something like that.—Alalch E. 11:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Is any action required here? If I'm reading it right, the article has been undeleted and expanded, Deb apologised before this thread was started, and everything is moving in he right direction. Are we good to close this? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with that. Thanks to the OP for raising this issue but there is nothing in here to disturb either admincond or adminacct. I particularly draw attention to the sentence from the first of those: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. As GirthSummit notes, this seems an incorrect use of A7 which was apologised for and rectified before this thread opened. Special thanks to Cullen328 for expanding the article, and lets move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (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.