Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141

Darker Dreams and Witchcraft

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 three months, Darker Dreams has been engaging in disruptive editing on articles related to Witchcraft. It seems they've set out to 'right great wrongs' by pushing an unhistorical neopagan-feminist view of Witchcraft. They've been edit warring, misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus, making POV forks, wrongly accusing others of vandalism, and ignoring good-faith requests. All are listed examples of tendentious editing. DD was recently blocked for edit warring but has continued after being repeatedly warned to stop. In the report, CorbieVreccan said: "This is tendentious editing. The user edit-wars to the edge of 3RR, is reverted by multiple editors, then takes a break for a day or more, then resumes the disruption".

Edit warring on Witchcraft:

• 11 July - 1st revert - replaced the longstanding academically-sourced definition with a bare URL dictionary definition, and a claim not backed by the source
• 11 July - 2nd revert - said they were ignoring BRD because "it's optional" and accused editors of OWN
• 12 July - 3rd revert
• 13 July - 4th revert - put the off-topic Wiccan meaning at the top of the lead

The article was then protected for a while and went through a Dispute Resolution and a Request for Comment. While these were ongoing, DD filed an Arbitration Request, which meant the Dispute Resolution had to be failed. The mediator, Robert McClenon, said "the filing of the arbitration request was not only unnecessary, but vexatious", and called on ArbCom to admonish DD. The RfC ended in mid September, when DD's disruption resumed...

• 14 Sept - misrepresented the sources. I reverted and asked for quotes to back it up. Instead of doing that, they reverted me and immediately warned me for 'edit warring', just for reverting them once. When I tagged the claim, they just deleted the tag and falsely claimed the quotes were on the talkpage somewhere.
• 20 Sept - deleted the important and reliably-sourced detail that 'neopagan witchcraft' is mainly a Western anglophone phenomenon, calling it "extra words that distract".
• 20 Sept - deleted more important reliably-sourced detail that contradicted something they added.
• 20 Sept - again deleted the statement
• 23 Sept - misrepresented the source, to make it seem that it talked about witchcraft as positive.
• 23 Sept - misrepresented the source again
• 24 Sept - 1st revert of the above, implying in their summary that Wikipedia doesn't have to follow sources closely.
• 24 Sept - 2nd revert
• 25 Sept - 3rd revert, calling it "POV pushing"
• In a discussion about the above; three editors agree Darker Dreams is misrepresenting sources.
• 27 Sept - 4th revert (just outside the 24hr window), calling it "POV pushing", despite unanimous opposition.
• 3 Oct - deleted a whole section and references, without discussion, about how the pagan Romans had laws against witchcraft - 1st revert
• 3 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 2nd revert
• 4 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 3rd revert
• 12 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 1st revert
• 12 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 2nd revert
• 12 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 3rd revert
• They also deleted another section and its references, leaving only one unsourced sentence. When asked to replace it, they added different content and references that backed up their POV.

Edit warring on Witchcraft (disambiguation):

• 11 July - 1st revert
• 12 July - 2nd revert
• 19 July - 1st revert again, accused editors of "POV pushing"
• 19 July - 2nd revert
• 19 July - 3rd revert, saying "last stable version isn't a valid thing".

Edit warring on Witchcraft (sidebar):

• 5 Sept - 1st revert
• 5 Sept - 2nd revert
• 5 Sept - 3rd revert
• 5 Sept - 4th revert
• 27 Sept - another revert, bizarrely right after posting a RS quote on the talkpage that contradicted themselves.

They created three POV forks of Witchcraft:

• Witchcraft (traditional) was deleted as a POV fork, with several editors noting that it misrepresented sources.
• Witchcraft (diabolic) was deleted as a POV fork
• Witchcraft (feminist) was created with only one reference; requests for more have been ignored; article left as a stub.

Edit warring on Witchcraft (traditional) - this was deleted, but admins can see the diffs here.

In the last ANI discussion involving them, several editors proposed they be topic banned.

Netherzone:

"I immediately got the impression that they were trying to right great wrongs. I found ... some of the accusations and personal attacks on the talk page disruptive and incivil ... they were making rapid changes to the article without respecting other editors through civil discussion and consensus building".

Thebiguglyalien:

"Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western neopagan understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. ... There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation".

CorbieVreccan summed it up at ArbCom:

"I've lost track of all of DD's policy violations and misrepresentations of policy. ... They've been chronically disruptive, incivil, and look to me to have engaged in tag-teaming".

This is clearly a behavioral issue. I thought things had calmed down, but they've started yet again after a few days, and they're now challenging the agreed wording after the RfC didn't go their way. This has been a huge time sink and unfortunately I don't think these articles will have stability unless DD is blocked from them. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí has made several accusations with a lot of diffs. The problem is it all ignores several key points.

1. Asarlaí contends that I am “pushing an unhistorical neopagan-feminist view of Witchcraft.” This is the foundation of their presumption that I’m performing 'tendentious editing,' including seeking to 'right great wrongs,' and justification for a number of their own comments and actions throughout this dispute.

1a. This is based on the assertion that there are only two valid definitions of witchcraft to be covered; malevolent and Neopagan. (I assume Asarlaí will willingly acknowledge this.)

1b. This is despite the fact the article contains multiple quoted reliable sources that demonstrate additional definitions as valid, including from a source they have referenced. Addition of properly sourced information is not tendatious or disruptive. All of the other conflicts (and accusations) flow from this

2 I prefer to work based on edit based consensus. This is in accordance with policy (WP:EDITCON). I would rather put work towards making improvements, rather than talking about making improvements. I have demonstrated on several occasions with multiple people in the witchcraft-related area and elsewhere that I’m willing to start at or move to talk when it’s useful, and more than happy for back-and-forth edits to produce improvement. It’s clear that my preference in this has been profoundly off-putting for some people. I find it concerning that work done in accordance with policy has been treated as evidence of bad faith and a behavior problem.

3. Several statements have been made that the RfC “didn’t go my way.” I’m deeply unclear where that belief is coming from – my initial edit and major point of contention was de-centering the primacy of one singular definition in what claimed to be a broad-concept article. The removal of malevolence and harm from the first two sentences was in accordance with sources and policy; ie - it was my way. Further, I am concerned that Asarlaí (and, frankly, a number of other people) view this as something I “lost,” like any part of this ongoing dispute is fight to be won.

I encourage anyone interested to take a deeper look at both Asarlaí and my ongoing involvement with the constellation of witchcraft-related pages.

I will address individual actions or sets of actions if desired. However, every choice I have made has been to improve coverage based on citable, notable information. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not alleging bad faith editing on the part of User:Darker Dreams, and I don't think that anyone is alleging that. POV-pushing is good-faith disruptive editing. It is done in order to improve the encyclopedia. It just doesn't improve the encyclopedia, because neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. I may address the other points within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The timing of this report is not so good for me as I am traveling at this time. I will chime in with my thoughts on this matter in the next few days, please keep the report open. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

As this discussion directly relates to the content of and consensus around the Witchcraft article, I have placed a notice on the Talk:Witchcraft page using roughly the text from the standard user notice. - Darker Dreams (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

Not again! I haven't followed this controversy in the past month. I became involved in July 2023 when User:Darker Dreams filed a DRN request. Darker Dreams was and is unhappy about the content of the article on Witchcraft and related articles, and filed a DRN request listing 22 users. The only dispute resolution process that works well with that many users is an RFC. An RFC was begun to try to get consensus on the scope of the article by getting consensus on the lede paragraph of the article. Darker Dreams then filed a Request for Arbitration while we were still working on the DRN. It wasn't clear what Darker Dreams wanted ArbCom to do, but this was forum shopping and was vexatious litigation. I see that User:Asarlaí has filed a detailed account of conduct issues. I will review Asarlai's filing and will comment further. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have read most of the material posted by Asarlai. I haven't read the diffs that were before my unsuccessful mediation. I am particularly concerned by the most recent edit-warring on witchcraft in pre-Christian ancient Rome, both because the clock-watching to game the 3RR rule is obvious, and because the POV-pushing is obvious. They are trying to hide the fact that there was a concept of malevolent witchcraft in a European pagan society. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Darker Dreams writes: I prefer to work based on edit based consensus.. Yes. That statement is empty, because we all prefer to work based on consensus. The question is what does an editor do when they are in the minority. What Darker Dreams does is to continue to push their POV. I will keep my remaining remarks shorter than sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I continue to be surprised by @Robert McClenon's adamance about assuming my bad faith since the failed mediation, including their willingness to admittedly ignore and refuse to acknowledge information.

1. While stating that I am POV pushing @Robert McClenon has failed to address in any way the core of the issue; that my "POV" is fundimental Wikipedia policy; include sourced material and the "counterpoint" is to remove or suppress that material.

2. They acknowledge that they have not reviewed the situation prior to the unsuccessful mediation. As such, I assume that when he says "what does an editor do when they are in the minority." they are unaware of multiple editors who were ground down and run off from the Witchcraft article prior to my arrival in the conversation. Corbie Vreccan said bluntly at one point that they repeatedly had the same conversations.

3. They have repeatedly described my filing at ARBCOM as vexatious and litigatious forum shopping. This is particularly shocking to me because there was nothing about the RfC process I was unhappy with. My only frustration with the DRN process was how much Asarlai and others were uninterested and unwilling to engage with it at multiple points. They were the ones that argued against the process beginning, and regularly did not participate. I have explained previously that I opened the ARBCOM case because I assumed the DRN would be failed after Corbie Vreccan opened a separate noticeboard case against me on a related page. However, @Robert McClenon has never acknowledged that I voiced this concern.

4. No one prior to this moment has voiced that their concern about removing the Roman history section was that they felt it was hiding a concept of malevolent witchcraft in European pagan society. The summary currently present in the overall witchcraft article is the lead from the European witchcraft article. Those unhappy with the move of the Rome section have not sought to change that intro in accordance with this concern. I have transferred the changes that have been made from one to the other without issue.

5. The idea that my "clock-watching is obvious" and that I prefer to work on edit-based consensus are part of the same thing; "taking it to talk" has more than once become a place to ignore things until they are pushed with edits to the page. For example, I opened a section on the talk page regarding the move of the Roman material to the European Witchcraft page. @Asarlaí still has not replied on that talk section after more than a week, another editor has replied supporting the move, and choosing instead to open this case.

As I said when @Robert McClenon comment at the ARBCOM request; I do feel bad that the mediation ended. I deeply appreciate the work they put into it. I think that it was making positive progress, and would have preferred to remain with that process, except that I felt other editors who were vocally unhappy with participating were being litigious and forum shopping in a way that would have failed the mediation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Netherzone

In addition to edit warring, incivility, tendentious editing, misrepresenting and cherry picking of sources, one of the things I found most troubling was DD's determination to silence Indigenous voices. When I brought this up on the talk page they denied their behavior, insisting that they did not remove content and sources and replace reliable sources with those of their own choosing. Even more troubling was that they denied removing a large portion of content and the sources; it is inappropriate to lie about one's actions to get one's own way. This is an egregious form of bludgeoning WP:BLUDGEON and POV pushing. They are unable or unwilling to edit in a manner that is respectful of other editors, and only take their own POV into consideration and are dismissive of other editor's comments/actions. Clearly, they are unable to participate with others on a collaborative project. They do not play well with others.

Diff of talk page discussion [1] and [2]. I don't have the time at the moment to provide all of the individual diffs of their actions, but will be able to get to it if requested within the next day or two. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All text I am accused of "removing" being added (moved) without change or alteration [3]; as I stated. - Darker Dreams (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Content and associated citations (references, sources) were removed - deleted - from the witchcraft article.
• With all of the citations removed from the the section it was left entirely unsourced. Any editor, including you, could then come along and remove the section completely since it was left entirely unreferenced.
• After I called attention on the Witchcraft talk page pointing out that the section had been stripped of sources, you then added citations a but not the original sources. You added new sources that backed up your POV, and left out the ones that did not support your POV.
• I then added back some of the older citations to the very brief content that remained.

I found that behavioral editing style problematic. Whether or not you moved it to a new splinter article you or someone else created during this drama or not is the issue I am addressing. Content and citations were removed from the Witchcraft article. There was no consensus to delete all of that content and move it to another article, especially in an article in which editing by you had been problematic for months. Netherzone (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban

In my opinion, the only remedy should be an indefinite topic-ban from the subject matter of witchcraft, magic, and the supernatural, broadly defined.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support We do not need determined POV pushers operating in fringe topic areas. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a consistent pattern of singleminded, WP:SANCTIONGAMING, PoV-pushing disruption within this specific topic-area. But the T-ban should probably also include paganism, lest this behavior just side-shift to a closely-related sphere (an argument can be made that paganism isn't covered by "witchcraft, magic, and the supernatural", and it's not an argument we need to entertain).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - POVpushing and disruptive attempts to game the system. “Supernatural”, broadly defined, seems to cover religion in general, including Paganism. FOARP (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we want to include religion and paganism in the ban, we should probably mention them explicitly, just so there aren't disputes on definition down the line...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - They have been given numerous warnings about their behavior on their talkpage and the Witchcraft talkpage itself; and ignores anybody who tries to stop them from making clearly biased edits with little to no reason besides personal preference Frost.xyz | (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Like I've said elsewhere, I do not think the problems with Witchcraft are down to any single individual including DD. Browsing the diffs, I also think that OP's characterizations of them range between extremely combative and just false. E.g. I'm not really sure what about this diff moving a few paragraphs is misrepresenting a source to make it seem like it's talking about witchcraft as positive? It's quite clearly about witches using powers to harm, on both sides of the edit.

The edit warring, on the other hand, I do think is very concerning, but again, that's not solely on DD: you need two sides to edit war. I think there needs to be some sort of page- or topic-wide sanctions and that sanctions on DD alone are just an obvious attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Their changes in that particular edit are outlined here. Two mentions of inflicting supernatural harm were changed to simply "using their power", which could mean something positive or neutral, and which go against the source. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Clear case made out for the TBAN, though I would prefer the broader one proposed below as (1A). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my original post. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) ... I would also support broadening it to include paganism, if deemed necessary. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban. DD still does not seem to understand this is a behavioral issue not a content issue. They have not modified their behavior over the past several months, rather it seems like they have dug in their heels and have excellerated the frequency and intensity of tendentious editing. They have a sustained an editorial bias that is contrary to NPOV. They have not learned from previous warnings and a block. A topic-ban makes a lot of sense, and I would not object to adding religion to the tban. Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support The "misrepresentation of sources" diffs are clear. DD has yet to provide a response for those editing failures, instead choosing to extol their own reasonableness. An admission of the obvious wrongdoing might have changed my mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, I'll answer questions about any of the edits that people want; Adding citation of moral neutrality to granted power To be clear, I did not find this (or the other) citations in response to the conflict. I posted this days before making the edits above. I cited everything that's claimed as "POV misuse of sources" Direct citation of "substances" acting on their own. I could, and probably should, have gone straight to these more direct quotes. However, I was trying for more mild moves and, neutral (NPOV) tones. It is also worth pointing out that Asarlai's response in every case was straight reversion - even when the citation ended up being a description of sympathetic magic based entirely on long-existing citations at the linked page. I was also, frankly, feeling out "consensus" on how close was text should be to citation. Asarlai also does not include their list of edits a number I've made since I got a copy of Hutton's Fear: a History of Witchcraft - because it turns out the book had been used pretty loosely to make unsupported statements for quite a while before I arrived at the page. In fact, the core of the content dispute was that book's definition of malevolent witchcraft being used with the adamant exclusion of it's own support of other definitions. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  shrugs still more fluff about events before the "conflict", and "feeling out "consensus" on Wikipedia:Verifiability" (apparently foundational Wikipedia policies need their consensus to be "felt out"????) As above, admission of obvious wrongdoing would have helped, but it's too late for that now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. Enough is enough, lots of time and energy being wasted. JM2023 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support (involved party) they have been an issue for a while. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1A: Restated Topic-Ban

To respond to concerns about the possibility of gaming the sanctions, we should expand the topic-ban to witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly defined. Paganism is a term used to characterize polytheistic religions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• support also this, for the reasons already discussed. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - see above Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my support for Proposal 1 and per nom. We don't want to allow opportunities to game the system. JM2023 (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per my statement above and that of several other editors. DD is unable to participate in a collaborative project and behave in a manner respectful and civil manner. They are unable to understand the problems with their own behaviors and seem unwilling to change - this disruption has been going on for months now, and is a huge time sink. I fully support a topic-ban for all articles on witchcraft, magic, the supernatural and religions, broadly construed. Netherzone (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support to reduce the opportunities for gaming the system Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 15:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. But am concerned this won't go far enough. Darker Dreams has done some strange edits just ignoring any alleged POV issues, like needlessly searching and linking the word "magico-religious" everywhere and making questionable edits on Magic and religion (a page that needs some deep review from someone not too close to the topic.) SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - There is a clear gaming of the system on these topic areas by DD. There is obvious POV and pushing and this option will, hopefully, prevent further disruption. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I have seen this disruption from a distance. It has been clear to me that Darker Dreams has been set out to change the definition of what a 'witch' is, by erasing the perception of witches as negative. They have not taken things to the talk page as they should have done. SWinxy (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I am involved, and a few of my diffs and comments are included above. Darker Dreams has alienated multiple editors with past unconstructive actions and for those editors it's hard to properly evaluate what this editor is doing and to trust that they are working to improve articles. They just can't catch up. And Darker Dreams' initiatives to reshape the content in these areas are quite hit-and-miss, which has to do with the tendency to interpret sources in highly particular ways. Darker Dreams doesn't deal with disputes very effectively and uses processes quite badly. This creates a bad climate that has to stop.—Alalch E. 17:36, 20 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.

Drsmoo and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour

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.

---

Drsmoo has previously had a ARBPIA logged warning about WP:BATTLEGROUND for fostering a battleground environment at Zionism, race and genetics and its talkpage.

Today they've decided they would carry on uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour as demonstrated in this edit at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. I'm calling for a topic ban for Arab-Israeli conflict topic area broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note more battleground behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please reference this edit in which Drsmoo refers to me as being upset as more evidence about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:Boomerang this. I have not made a single personal attack or battleground post and I have no idea what Tarnished Path is talking about. Another editor made a post about “convincing” them, to which I replied that Wikipedia was not about opinions but reliable sources. Tarnished Path asked me to strike my post, so I changed personal pronouns “you” to general one’s “if one”. Tarnished Path continued insisting I was making a personal attack. When I asked, out of genuine confusion, what they were upset about so I could modify it, they took that as a personal attack and started this. I have been trying to edit collegially with Tarnished Path, if they are going to take a gentle question about why they’re upset as an attack then I don’t see how constructive editing is possible. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit: Here I specifically asked Tarnished Path what in my edit they object to so that I could change it, and they responded by insulting and threatening me. Drsmoo (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Edit: Please also note that the edit provided by tarnished path is old, and was struck/modified well before this AN/I was posted. Drsmoo (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo, I suggest you strike that comment. The diff you presented shows that I neither insulted you nor threatened you. TarnishedPath^talk 13:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, nothing Drsmoo said in that discussion was a personal attack or an insult. I suggest you drop this before it becomes a WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, telling editors that they are biased and not fit to edit topics is not personal attacks or insults now. OK, I'll take your advise on board. TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TarnishedPath, as pointed out above, I had already edited my post to clarify the point as a general one well before you started this AN/I. I’m not sure why youre repeatedly bringing up an edit prior to its modification? Drsmoo (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo, you originally wrote "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your biases cause you to edit against reliable sourcing you are not fit to edit in this topic."

Which you then edited to "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your biases cause you to edit against reliable sourcing you are not fit to edit in this topic."

It's clear that you had already clarified what you meant by that point.

Your final edit you wrote "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your ones biases cause you them to edit against reliable sourcing you they are not fit to edit in this topic."

So as a general point are you not interested in anyone's opinions? Again you've been warned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour previously in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the discussion was in regards to that very topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s correct, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not about “convincing” anyone. In the future, please use the current text when making a report. Drsmoo (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Saying that you believe someone has a bias is not an insult or a personal attack. Saying someone is not fit to edit a topic is rude, but a single instance is not enough to bring sanctions IMO.

At this point, I'm going to say again: WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Calling people biased is incivil, particularly when no evidence is presented in furtherance is such aspersion. As you also note calling people "not fit to edit" is rude. Both are part of battleground behaviour and this is not a once off.

• Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon - A discussion about the animus and rancour that has been occurring between Drsmoo and another editor other a period of months. In that discussion is linked a case at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding none other than Drsmoo at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive76#User:Drsmoo. This details various battleground behaviour by Drsmoo.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Nishidani using talk page as a forum - Details Drsmoo editing Talk:2018 Gaza border protests is a disruptive manner. They received a warning from admin on that occasion.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Mass reversion spree by Drsmoo - Details a mass reversion spree by Drsmoo in what admins described as what appeared to be WP:HOUNDING. Linked in that discussion is an interaction they had on another editors usage talk found at User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 5#Complaint, in that interaction Drsmoo repeatedly casts aspersions at another editor, without evidence, indicative of battleground behaviour.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Zionism, race and genetics is discussion regarding the behaviour of a number of editors and Drsmoo was one of them. In that discussion are linked two diffs [4] and [5] in which Drsmoo casts aspersions about editor/s having COIs, again indicative of battleground behaviour.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive212#User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Stale) - A discussion about Drsmoo allegedly violating 1RR at Richard A. Falk per WP:ARBPIA. In this discussion is linked a diff [6] in which Drsmoo leaves a combative reply in response to someone explaining wiki policy, again demonstrating battleground behaviour.
• and as I linked at the top of this discussion they've had a ARBPIA logged warning in relation to "fostering a battleground environment at Zionism, race and genetics and and its talkpage".

Note all of these discussions from what I can gather have resolved around disputes to do with articles in the Palestine-Israeli topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

So you're digging through years-old incidents to try and get a person topic-banned, all over being called "biased." This really seems like you're trying to get someone topic-banned to win an argument, and I won't be surprised if you're hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. Count yourself lucky if this just gets archived for inactivity in a few days. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I also modified my edit very quickly so that I wasn’t calling anyone biased. Drsmoo (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There's immaterial different in editing your to ones and you to them when your comment was still directed at Kashmiri. If you were sincere about recanting it, you ought to have struck the whole thing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and don't case WP:ASPERSIONS. This is not about trying to "win an argument". This is about not walking past an established pattern of behaviour spanning a period of time. Additionally they didn't call me biased, their incivility and rudeness was directed at another editor. TarnishedPath^talk 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Further instances demonstrating a pattern of ongoing behaviour:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive38#Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon - Discussion in which it is noted that Drsmoo has engaged in personal attacks on article talk pages. Refer to diffs [7] and [8].
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive320#Tombah - During this discussion Tamzin removes unevidenced accusations made by Drsmoo and provides a warning.

Again these appear to be in regards to be in disputes that arose out the Palestine-Israeli topic area. Including what I've linked above this is eight instances, that I've found, demonstrating an ongoing pattern of behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive38#Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon That's from 14 years ago? I'm struggling to see the relevance of such ancient history. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All of the entries span their continuous editing history. This demonstrates an ongoing pattern. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Imo, this should be taken to AE. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll consider it. Since my last comment Drsmoo has engaged in further incivility towards another editor. First he WP:STRAWMAN'ed them, only striking it when I called him out, them and then he called them "bigoted" which he still hasn't striked. The fact that he might have not referred to them directly by name is irrelevant, the target was obvious from the context of the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That editor, CarolMooreDC was permanently banned from Wikipedia, btw. If you want to use her tirades against me from 14 years ago, go right ahead. @HandThatFeeds, since your post, Tarnished Path has tripled down, and now other users are quoting old revisions of struck diffs and 14 year old tirades. Drsmoo (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. I'm about ready to suggest an interaction ban, if TP isn't wiling to drop this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, is not grounds to call for an interaction ban. I have no problems interacting with Drsmoo, most if not all of of our interactions have been quite cordial. It's their interactions with others that are the issue here. In the last 24 hours they've WP:STRAWMAN'ed another editor (now striked) and then called them "bigoted" (not striked). If you don't see issues there then I really don't know why you're commenting. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No I did not. This is WP:Harassment at this point, motivated by Tarnished Path bizarrely taking offense to me asking what in my post offended them. This in particular is strange to me, and I’m not sure how it lead to 14-year old forum shopping from a site-banned user being brought up. Drsmoo (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds So Tarnished Path has now not only quadrupled down, he is threatening to go to AE. Special:MobileDiff/1180671937, in what would then be a case of WP:Forumshop I’m wondering how long this WP:Harassment is going to continue. And a personal attack like “If you don't see issues there then I really don't know why you're commenting.” should not be acceptable Drsmoo (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo, you need to read WP:Harassment. before carrying on this pattern of WP:INCIVIL and casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. The issues I've documented isn't a single incident from 14 years ago and spans your time editing on Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest this very long thread be closed with a warning to TarnishedPath for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Alternatively, a block or interaction ban for TP. I've lost count of how many times TarnishedPath has been told to drop the stick or face sanctions, but they just keep it coming. Enough is enough. Jeppiz (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are we letting Drsmoo off the hook here? It doesn't seem like they're editing with an NPOV as clearly they have a pattern of rude, battleground behavior especially around this specific topic; Not letting TP off the hook completely but does WP just tolerate general rudeness now? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The posts brought up at the beginning of this thread are not a violation of WP:NPA. Curt, yes, but not enough for even a WP:TROUTing. Everything else is old and stale. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggest 1-Way Interaction Ban

Per the above intractable discussion, I suggest a 1-way interaction ban against TarnishedPath, due to targeting another user in an editing dispute, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK when not getting his way.

• Support as proposer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not required. Me bringing this here had nothing to do with any editing disputes. Further the suggestion of a one way interaction ban is unworkable. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Unreasonable. I don't think we should be completely letting Drsmoo off the hook here as some of TP's evidence is pretty damning; that being said, everyone here should just chill. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

They opened this AN/I with an outdated diff that had been edited almost an hour before this was filled. That makes this a false report to begin with, which should be sanctionable in and of itself. They then went through 18 years of my editing history to post mainly various forum shops that went nowhere from a now site-banned editor. If after 18 years editing in the I/P space the most one can find is a minor warning that went to multiple editors, that is a pretty good track record I think. You can check my block log if you think I have any issues with civility on Wikipedia. I have no blocks in the past 12 years, Tarnished Path has four. I have also never seen a user take offense to being asked what in my post upset them. I then rephrased and asked specifically what they would like me to strike, which seemed to result in this filling. All of which is diffed out above. (If any diffs happen to be missing, I’m happy to provide them. I have quite literally never experienced this on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 00:15, 21 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.

Utku Öziz

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.

---

Utku Öziz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this editor due to [9]. In looking at their contribs,[10], a significant number have been reverted and I think this should be considered as a SPA focusing on removing content related to Turkish history they do not like. Needs community review for NOTHERE or a topic ban from the Eastern Europe/Armenia-Azerbaijan area broadly construed.

They received a CT notice in March 2023 regarding this area.[11] (Eastern Europe) and [12] (Armenia-Azerbaijan) in December 2022.

 // Timothy :: talk  00:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've indeffed per NOTHERE. I guess disruptive editing, incivility, or any number of other reasons would have worked too. #cahoots ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 21 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.

Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Help and eyeballs needed at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, please. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And this is exactly why we're WP:NOTNEWS. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty neutral at the moment though. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not say what some editors think it says. Read it, please. The relevant policy language is: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.. Wikipedia covered the September 11 attacks in its very early days, and has covered every historic news event since. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And it's a shame it does. If we forbade creation of an article on a news event until it's been out of the headlines for 30 days, we'd reduce traffic at ANI by 50% and release incalculable quantities of editor time for useful pursuits. Readers can and should find out about current events from news sources. EEng 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

News source can be paywalled and have many articles as the event progress, while Wikipedia only have one article and its sub article (summary style). As a reader myself Wikipedia has been a great place to avoid propaganda/misinformation/disinformation in this current conflict. Hddty (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't put too much trust in that method, considering Wikipedia is wrong due to the fact its material comes from the same sources that propagandize. It is only natural that Wikipedia includes the biases of sources. Whether Wikipedia waits or does not wait in cases like this, there is no immunity from sources (while waiting can allow time for clearer source consenses to develop, there is no guarantee that those sources are any more truthful than original reports). JM2023 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Beyond Hddty's comments, no one compels editors to follow or participate in the various drama boards. You are entirely free -- as is every other editor -- to spend your time in such other useful pursuits as seems to you good. Never mind that forbidding creation of articles on news events would just divert incalculable quantities of time into playing whack-a-mole. Ravenswing 03:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• no one compels editors [etc etc etc]] – You could say the same about anything that consumes editor time inefficiently.
• would just divert incalculable quantities of time into playing whack-a-mole – Whack-a-mole is a very easy game to play. In contrast we've got three threads on this very board, at this very moment, centered on the hospital explosion; undoubtedly there are dozens more on other boards and talk pages. 30 (or 60 or 90) days from now the fog of war will have lifted to a large extent on that incident, and a good article can be written from solid sources.

EEng 01:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@EEng:, I suggested exactly that, once, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_191#Moratorium_on_recent_events. It was not a happy episode. I think the culmination for me was "No. This is one of the weirdest suggestions ever put forward". It was quite a while before I ventured back into the village pump area! I still hold that trying to be a newspaper as well as an encyclopaedia creates a lot of editorial difficulties; we have to write on subjects without the perspective of distance, which needs a totally different skill-set. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Ha! I probably should have read this thread, and the one you linked to, before opening this: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTNEWS/unfolding news stories. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Continuing COI and likely block evasion at Pir Syed Nazim Hussain Shah and Pir Syed Zagham Abbas

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.

---

Articles about father and son--if memory serves, previously blocked accounts identified as Abbas. DoctorImam (talk · contribs) and Medical786 (talk · contribs) were both created just after Hussaini7246 (talk · contribs) was blocked. Current protection of Shah may be insufficient, and if Medical786 is proven to be a sock, Abbas can be deleted as WP:REVERTBAN. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E13F:8936:C820:C22A (talk) 16:16, 20 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.

TompaDompa, Cakelot1, and Doom

User:TompaDompa and User:Cakelot1 have repeatedly reverted edits in regards to the 1993 video game Doom, as well as the greater Doom franchise, on the article Mars in fiction.

This began when I made a minor edit to clarify incorrect information present in the article, only to have my edit reverted by TompaDompa. I then remade my edit, citing the original Doom manual, only for TompaDompa to delete the passage about Doom entirely for WP:PROPORTION.

A long and lengthy discussion took place on the article's talk page, with numerous attempts at finding a compromise and numerous attempts to explain how Doom, a game franchise that prominently features Mars, is worthy of being mentioned in the article, but it all fell on deaf, goalpost-moving ears.

TompaDompa in particular is taking Ownership of the article and discouraging contribution despite a general consensus that Doom belongs as a mention on the article. I would like a more official consensus on this instead of myself and others continuing to debate this fruitlessly.

Unawoken (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I've only reverted one of your edits and clearly (hopefully at least) explained why I did so both in the edit summary and on the talk page. I think some amount of OWN on TompaDompa's part is understandable seeing as he completely rewrote it from a very bad article that amounted to a list of every time something is mentioned and turned it into an FA. Per WP:FAOWN a certain amount of care is needed when adding content to articles that have gone through a FA review, particularly if the source for said edit is a primary source such as a game manual. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Something being "understandable" does not make it acceptable in any way. Unawoken (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• This forum is not for content disputes. If you cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, you can try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  My complaint has to do with how TompaDompa is handling this content dispute. Unawoken (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  They are doing a good job at keeping mentions of Mars in fiction that are not recognised as important in scholarly literature about Mars in fiction out of the article. Mars appears in thousands of works that are important for various reasons, but do not have recognition in works about Mars in fiction. This was widely debated at the FAC. We can't use our own judgement of what is important and what is not without engaging in WP:OR. —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't see anything wrong with their actions. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, which means that generally all content decisions are decided by discussion and agreement. You proposed an edit, some editors agreed and some didn't, and now you're discussing. That's how things are supposed to work. I don't see anything wrong with TompaDompa or anyone else holding this featured article to a high standard for what is and is not included, and they suggested a way forward: that you provide a high-quality source which discusses Doom as an important example of a fictional depiction of Mars and why, rather than simply demonstrating that it's a popular video game which coincidentally is set on the planet. These standards exist so that our articles feature high-quality content relevant to the topic, rather than endless lists of tangential topics with little context or relevance. I don't think you have provided that source yet, but that should be your next step if you want this to be included. If you don't agree, you can try dispute resolution, but if you still haven't located a source then I don't think your arguments will go very far. But at any rate, I don't see how there's anything for admins to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  He repeatedly insisted I should bring this to your attention if I felt he was taking ownership of the article, which I feel he is. Unawoken (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Plenty of editors have already tried to explain that they're not. If you take a look at the WP:OWNERSHIP policy, you will find a section below the descriptions of ownership behaviour titled Ownership and stewardship, which better explains the activity here. Featured articles go through a vigorous peer review to be considered the "best" Wikipedia articles, and it's reasonable for an experienced editor like TompaDompa who has done the work of improving the article to that level to be considered an authority on maintaining that article's featured status. Stewardship can degrade into ownership if experienced editors begin to reject reasonable improvements, but in this case I don't think that's happening. TompaDompa has outlined a very reasonable method for you to demonstrate the relevance of your proposed addition (by providing a context-appropriate reliable source, really a bare minimum for wanting to add content) and you have not done so. If you do find such a source, I'm sure they'll be willing to discuss it with you. If they don't, then come back here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes but at some point you need to pick up on the fact that no one is agreeing with you. It is too bad that you have devoted all your energy to explaining why you think TD is wrong, instead of to listening and understanding why they are correct. --JBL (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are other people making similar edits and debating this with similar arguments to me on the talk page. If that doesn't count as "agreement", you and I must both clearly fail to understand what is. It's disappointing to see an admin get snippy about "devoting all my energy" when this is clearly a much bigger point of contention for someone else who is not me. Unawoken (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am not an admin.

  It is not surprising that fancruft gets added by multiple fans (this happens all the time all over Wikipedia); the fact that several people have added it does not mean that the addition is good, and moreover in this particular case very strong reasons have been given for why it is not good. You called my comment snippy, but in fact it was entirely sincere: I hope that you continue to edit and improve Wikipedia, and while you do so I hope you learn that an important part of helping here is allowing yourself to be convinced by what other people have to say. --JBL (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• TompaDompa seems to have very patiently tried to explain the essence of WP:PROPORTION to Unawoken, to no avail. There is no "general consensus" on the talk page, and no "deaf, goalpost-moving ears" as alleged above. No action necessary for a fairly well-handled content dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  +1. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  My edit and others have been disregarded and reverted for numerous reasons that have increased in pedantry since this discussion began. First it was an incorrectly flagged minor edit, then it wasn't relevant at all, then others made similar edits and were told their edits lacked sources before being told that they were in the wrong section, and then I was told that adding it to the "See also" section was irrelevant. All of these were issues already present in the article, but they only became noteworthy and worth discussing when a 30 year old video game was mentioned. Unawoken (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:PROPORTION was outlined in TD's first reply; the fact that you don't think it worthy of mention in your list is certainly indicative of the lack of attention you are paying to others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Choosing to needle your own point as your sole method of acknowledging anything I have said in my above comment also reflects poorly. Unawoken (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  As you wish. Let's analyse the "increasingly pedantic reasons" for reverting your edits.

  First it was an incorrectly flagged minor edit referring to this edit, marked as minor. As explicitly said on your talk page, this revert was not because it was incorrectly marked, but instead "had to do with the sourcing". Thus, the above "reason" clearly misrepresents other editors.

  then it wasn't relevant at all see WP:PROPORTION above, mentioned on many occasions, and each time ignored. Let's mark this down as classic WP:IDHT.

  then others made similar edits and were told their edits lacked sources before being told that they were in the wrong section you may remember this is a simplification; the problem was not "lacking sources", but rather that the 1993 Doom manual is the "high-quality reliable sources" demanded by the FA criteria. On the sections—no, 1993 is not the third millennium, but I think we can AGF your conduct on this.

  then I was told that adding it to the "See also" section was irrelevant indeed you were - you were provided with a relevant quotation from MOS:ALSO, which you didn't feel the need to reply to, instead stating "I have no option but to escalate this to the admins". Again, classic WP:IDHT, maybe with a small dash of WP:RGW.

  and finally, All of these were issues already present in the article, but they only became noteworthy and worth discussing when a 30 year old video game was mentioned. which makes no sense whatsoever, and we should probably move on from it quickly lest we move into WP:COR territory (if you can come up with an explanation of how it makes meaningful sense Unawoken, that would be much appreciated).

  So, there you go. I've substituted my needle for a hammer, and hopefully banged your jumbled mess above into some sort of comprehensibility. It's been a very fun exercise in source analysis, so thanks for providing me with the opportunity and materials. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Brilliant work. Unawoken (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do the editors want to request moderated discussion at DRN ? McClenon mobile (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I have suggested that twice or maybe three times above, but Unawoken does not seem interested. As they said, a few editors in the talk page discussion did refer them here, I think mistakenly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am interested and willing to cooperate. Unawoken (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

One of you needs to file the case request at DRN. You should be aware that I will tell you to "Comment on content, not contributors", because the purpose of content discussion is to improve an article. I will not be interested in the past editing of any article, and will begin by asking each of you what you want to change in an article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Two days later, I haven't seen a case at DRN. Of course, DRN is voluntary, but compliance with policies and guidelines is a required condition of editing. I am still ready to mediate, but only if asked via the template for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Unawoken: As an alternative to pushing for inclusion of unsourced content, you could do some legwork and find reliable sources that discuss Doom as an aspect of Mars in fiction. For example, M. Keith Booker, Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Cinema (2020), p. 275, stating that a "monster-on-Mars theme (clearly moving into the territory of the horror film), is something of a throwback to the Martian exploration films of the 1950s, as is the ultraviolent Doom (2005), a video-game adaptation". @TompaDompa and Cakelot1: as this is from an entry on Mars in science fiction generally, would this satisfy your criteria for inclusion of the topic in this article? BD2412 T 04:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good source to use for List of films set on Mars, but that passage doesn't really create a strong case for covering the Doom video game at Mars in fiction (the game itself is mentioned only in passing). Hm. I managed to work in a mention of the franchise as part of the point that source makes about monster movies set on Mars. TompaDompa (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I grant, it is somewhat weak for mentioning the game as the subject matter from which the film is adapted; how about a link to Doom (franchise), a multimedia affair that covers both iterations, among others? The Mars in fiction article as it stands says nothing about horror fiction set on Mars, which includes this franchise and a few other films mentioned in the source. BD2412 T 05:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Doom (franchise) is linked in the added sentence Monster movies set on Mars have appeared throughout this time period including the 2001 film Ghosts of Mars, the 2005 film Doom based on the video game franchise of the same name, and the 2013 film The Last Days on Mars. TompaDompa (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think that is exactly correct and proportionate. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

User:BesNutGeb

Can an admin take an urgent look at this, relatively new, editor's work. They are creating some wholly inappropriate, offensive and anti-Semitic re-directs. Jewnited Kingdom and Jewkraine are two examples I've come across. I'm sure there will be more. I've notified them on their Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

And what on earth is this, [13]? I seriously doubt this user's intention is to help build an encyclopaedia. KJP1 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's enough of that. Indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wiktionary has just been cleaned up, [14] but the history shows it was stuffed with anti-Obama, and highly racist, trash. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I think their edits will need a fuller check. We've also got Jewnited States, Killary Clinton, Jew's star, multiple variants of Ziyonism, Demonrat, Jewgle, Soviet Jewnion, Juden Peterstein, Jewnited Snakes and that's just from a quick look. A similarly quick look at the editor's wider editing pattern shows a very heavy emphasis on the American far/alt right. KJP1 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've requested global lock, since this has spilled over onto Wiktionary. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion, User:Hpushkas318

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

See Draft:Influence of Johnny Depp and related SPIs. Thanks in advance, NotAGenious (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ali36800p misrepresenting sources

Over at Talk:Iraq_War#Result Ali36800p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on insisting they have sources supporting this edit [[15]] they have (despite being asked more than once) [[16]] to produce a quote all they do is posts wall of links [[17]] (while promising to provide quotes if we ask), that fail, wp:v (which they claim to know [[18]].

It is a huge time-sink. when all they have been asked to do is to quote and provide 1 source that backs their edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

ok ok, go to Talk:Iraq_War#Result and i'll quote from every source, just please chill out Ali36800p (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is you have been asked to do so (3 hours ago [[19]]), and not done so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I may be blind, but this [[20]] is a violation of V as it does not support either that the US was defeated (only that it had not yet won) or that they were overwhelmed. Read wp:or and wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And wp:cherrypicking, as removing the last few words of a qoute to alter its meaning is a violation [[21]] (full quote "These DOD sources indicated that U.S. and coalition forces were overwhelmed by the number and size of these sites,..." it goes on to talk about ammo storage sits nothing to do with insurgents). Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And you have still not read wp:or [[22]], it does not say anything about an American defeat. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

i cant quote more if you want Ali36800p (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-war-iraq

quote: "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011." The report goes on to describe how the US-led coalition forces were successful in many battles, but the urban fighting was costly and the insurgency persisted. Ali36800p (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources that explicitly mention the fact that the US failed to defeat the Iraqi insurgency:

A report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, which states that "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."

An article by The Guardian, which describes how "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."

A report by the Congressional Research Service, which notes that "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011."

These sources provide further evidence that the US was not successful in defeating the Iraqi insurgency and that the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops.https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/19/iraq-war-10-years-on https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf Ali36800p (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Need I say more, they have not read or understood wp:v, wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

who me? no you're just not understanding Ali36800p (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And now edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ali36800p has been made CT aware here and these edits [23], [24], [25] and [26] would indicate edit warring and disruptive conduct. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And now dishonest edit summaries [[27]] And at 3rr at the moment (for just today, not the last 24 hours). Over them removing sources they themselves added (i just noticed). Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

it was an empty source citation problem but now it's fixed Ali36800p (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You added them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting two things. 1) That was a good-faith error, where the citations were in a bad format, but were fixed. (See Special:diff/1181084145 for explanation.) 2) I'm currently discussing with Ali36800p and Cinderella157 on the talk page. Ali36800p seems reluctant to engage the argument on policy grounds, but I'm hopeful getting another editor to chime in will convince them which way consensus lies, and to abide by it. If they are so convinced, there may not be a need for administrator action.EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

My good faith has been exhausted. There seems to be IP socking by Ali36800p. 5 hours after being told that the only way their preferred version would stand is if other editors came in and agreed, an IP comes in and makes the same unsupported assertion that the insurgents defeated the US for its first ever edit, then with its second makes the same argument as Ali36800p. And then, 18 minutes later, Ali36800p comments "see look, [IP] agrees with me".

To illustrate, editors have explained to Ali36800p many times (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) that MOS:MIL instructs that an infobox result either read "X Victory" or "See aftermath". I have not yet seen them engage on a policy level, only insisting that the reader needs the bullets in the infobox, which is coming across as either WP:IDHT or WP:CIR.

They also reverted the attempt to fix the info box 3 times (1, 2, and 3 in which they claim they "don't need any objections [but their own]") in the span of 3 hours. I suspect if I'd reverted a third time (and not warned them about 3RR) they would have breached 3RR and been blocked for that.

Combined with the misrepresentation of sources initially, I now believe this need administrator intervention. I would suggest a short block, to impress upon them that they must follow the rules and guidelines, and also to allow the infobox on the article to be brought to community standards. Further disruption can be dealt with by escalating blocks if needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Finland. I'm not convinced that that's socking. Could be a joe job, could be coincidence. Totally could be socking but I wouldn't hang a block on it. But what we do see here is either misrepresentation of sources or a failure to understand what they're saying. Either is disruptive, so I have indeffed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing of truck related articles by Providence IP range

• 2600:8805:D609:3800::/64 (talk · contribs). Lots of reversions, but they keep returning with new IPs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Continuing [28], without responding at talk page or here. All unsourced changes to multiple articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

More adventures in copyediting

With increasing frequency, I'm encountering new-ish accounts devoted to rapid copyediting with mixed results. For many, I'm guessing English is not the native language. One such account is LevMax10 (talk · contribs), who has received notices since April regarding speed of editing, inability to discern promotional content, trouble with WP:ENGVAR and MOS:OVERLINK, and gratuitous changes that don't really improve anything, among other issues. Speed and not proofreading their own edits may account for numerous grammatical errors, though many edits suggest basic grammatical difficulties--by way of demonstrating, I offer a few, mostly from the last week: [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]; [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53].

Not gross violations, but an example of encyclopedic quality being pecked to death, a nibble at a time. The latest volley of edits--notwithstanding determination to continue wikilinking names of countries--looks better. But their belated response isn't terribly encouraging, and they appear to be plowing ahead, regardless: [54]; [55]. I don't think they get it. Does anyone believe this is a capable copyeditor? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR. Looks like a problem here. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR, if someone does not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to be copyediting then they shouldn't be copyediting. This is an increasingly prevalent sitewide problem. JM2023 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Editors who are engaged in copyediting on the English Wikipedia while lacking basic English language competence should be warned, and blocked if they persist, and advised to edit the Wikipedia version in their first language or their truly fluent languages. Any editor who can write comprehensible, well-referenced, policy compliant new content should be encouraged and forgiven for writing non-standard English prose, because that is easy for fluent English speakers to correct. But attempting to carry out a function that requires excellent English language skills without possessing those skills is a non-starter. Warn, and block if the disruptive edits continue. There is a widespread notion among people not fully fluent in English that the English language Wikipedia is the "mother version" or the "master version". We need to disabuse such editors of that notion at every opportunity, and encourage such editors to contribute instead to the language versions where they are actually fluent. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be a result of the newcomer task copyedit idea; imo new editors even when fluent in a variety of English should rarely be encouraged to copy edit, as they never know enough of the labyrinthine details of MoS to contribute without introducing errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Attacks on a specific individual and his people

Here [56] and here [57]

Please do Revision Deletion on both these edits. Thanks. 103.180.171.40 (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be straight-forward vandalism and not something that rises to the level of revdel. --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Do Revision Deletion on both those edits, so that legal issues can't happen for anybody. 103.180.171.40 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked reporter for vandalism and legal threats. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Andriyrussu

This editor was blocked for personal attacks last month and now I see that they did not learn from this and decided to vandalize someone's user page (twice) such as "Hello, I am dolboeb!" (Russian for dumbfuck) following an edit war on 2023–24 Moldovan Super Liga with also personal attacks in edit summaries there. Mellk (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of edit wars with a lot of reverts, but this one...wow...I stopped counting. I'm not taking any action against Kolya77, although, frankly, they should at least be talked to. I have indefinitely blocked Andriyrussu for the personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Does this look like logged out editing/block evasion? Mellk (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and before that WP:LOUTSOCK. I've blocked the /64 range for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Bmchedlishvili

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard#Bmchedlishvili

User:Ahmadech4

Ahmadech4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if this is a language-related WP:CIR issue, a simple refusal to listen to what they have been told, or both, but User:Ahmadech4 keeps asking how to create an article on Farzad ghaderi, an Iranian MMA fighter who clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria, after their multiple recreations of the article have been deleted, and the article has been creation-protected. [58] See both Ahmadech4's talk page and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#why delete Farzad_ghaderi article for this chronic failure to take the slightest notice of anything anyone says. An indef block would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC).

Nest of accounts editing to promote Yacob Lumenda Piang Ampatuan

They're popping up quicker than I can list them, but the main accounts are

• Ssaaofficial (talk · contribs)
• Gobyernodepilipinasicorporated (talk · contribs)

They also appear to be using a bunch of IPs to create promotional drafts Draft:Yacob Lumenda Piang Ampatuan, User:Gobyernodepilipinasicorporated/sandbox and add links to said drafts at other articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• See also Rajah Buayan and Zamzamin Ampatuan, each of which may require protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Bergenoslo

Bergenoslo (talk · contribs) - this editor is edit warring at Domenico Berardi, having reverted both me and @PeeJay: despite our explanation that their edits are in breach of MOS. The MOS in question is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#International, and discussions have been attempted at 1 (where I was ignored) and 2 (where is consensus that their edits are disruptive).

From a review of their talk page I note this user has been warned about edit warring previously - they have also made multiple comments in edit summaries and at 2 above that those reverting are engaging in vandalism and engaging in personal attacks.

This is not about whether the MOS needs to change or whose edit is 'correct' - this is about an editor who edits disruptively and against consensus and who accuses other editors of vandalism and personal attacks. GiantSnowman 13:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Since Bergenoslo has been edit warring for one week, I have blocked them for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let you know if they continue when they return. GiantSnowman 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do so, GiantSnowman. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Need unbiased admin support on bad faith edit warring claim

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 seems to be bad faith consensus and editing manipulation from the page on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

User @StephenMacky1 undid a revision claiming disruption despite editor's comments on etymological and factual corrections.

User @MrOllie further undid the revert of those edits with no reason attached. Under the talk page to the article or original editor they did not further elaborate.

User @PatrickJWelsh minutes later edited the page adding an oxford comma to make it impossible to revert the edits without unjustly reverting their edit.

All 3 users speak German and have a pro-German bias on their pages. It seems they are acting in bad faith to suppress information on a page of German interest by maintaining the page's biased language claiming "you need to get consensus" and then refusing further elaborations on details. 188.147.68.180 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvious evasion of the blocks on 188.147.76.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2a00:f41:48b4:2642::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the block evading, axe-grinding, anti-German POV pusher. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The other two editors were entirely correct to revert the recent edits. If there is bias in the current article, I'm sure we all wish to remove it. Please start a discussion on the talk page.

If anyone comes back to reinsert polemical language about ethnicity, state propaganda, etc. without prior discussion and consensus, I would propose low-level protection of the article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:33, 22 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.

39r3i93

User 39r3i93 a new account (10 edits total as of this AN/I start) and their first three edits were to revert/page blank 3 times on October 2023 Tulkarm incursion to, and I quote their first edit summary, "making a point". Note, this is a CTOPS 30/500 article, to which they removed the CTOPS notice from the talk page saying, "try enforcing this first". The third of their page blankings was reverted by me, to which they responded on my talk page to. After this, I mentioned they needed to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which I assumed was obvious for the page blanking + "making a point" edit summary. To this mention as well as me pointing out they duplicated a page protection request, they responded with, "WP:POINT does not mention this. Clearly a troll or WP:CIR issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Such an assumption falls in violation to Wikipedia:Assume no clue. --39r3i93-2 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

LOL! WP:SOCK time! (Reply to their alt, User:39r3i93-2). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I scrambled the password because I thought we were done with. I was wrong. --39r3i93-2 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, a similar think happened on Battle of Re'im where vandalism was necessary to enforce an ArbCom restriction, but unfortunately that IP, trying to be a hero, was blocked for 31 hours.The article in question is still not ECP. --39r3i93-2 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So, three points: 1) ECP is discretionary on the part of admins, even to enforce ARBECRs; 2) RFPP is the correct place to request it; 3) I do not believe for a second that you knew about the ECR but not where to find RFPP, and besides your conduct here has been trollish, so I have blocked both your accounts indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, good block, and I agree with Weather Event Writer this is a also a CIR issue, on the grounds that anyone who thinks for a moment that we wouldn't instantly associate a first-day newbie who somehow knows about ArbCom restrictions with sock/trolls just doesn't meet basic competency levels. Ravenswing 20:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Good block. To Ravenswing's point, such folks usually think of themselves as far more clever than they actually are. That being said, October 2023 Tulkarm incursion is a terribly written article. I am trying to keep my substantive editing regarding this latest war to a minimum, and am instead observing and being prepared to act as an administrator. Anybody else is invited to clean up this article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was notified on my user talk page regarding this incident. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in the revert reason mentioning it as disruptive, even though the comments appeared to disrupt the flow of the article when I came across the revision. Those comments should have been directed at the appropriate noticeboards or the article's talk page. I apologize for this particlar revert for an edit that may be problematic in the flow of the article, but might not be considered vandalism. Tropicalkitty (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah. It was disruptive as an article was being page-blanked to "prove a point", which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I 100% agree that the article needs massive rewriting and improvement. I added the CE tag to it earlier today because of how the quality of it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is User:Snepjand evading a recent block?

Could you please check whether Snepjand (talk · contribs) was created to evade a block on Ojando (talk · contribs). See recent history at Immortals of Aveum. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close enough. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Competence is required

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.

---

Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [59]. I provided verification [60] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [61] [62] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [63]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This case is mostly a content dispute, but Dustfreeworld has failed to discuss as part of the BRD cycle. I am not an admin, but if Vacosea wants to reinsert the information they feel is not covered, I would be happy to support the inclusion temporarily until discussion is completed, acting as an informal third opinion. Be careful not to revert, thereby deleting the many changes that have been made since your edit, simply make a minimal edit which includes the information you wish to see included.

Dustfreeworld probably needs to show awareness that following a revert which the other user takes exception to, discussion is not optional. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not like that at all, in my reading. Dustfreeworld has not removed anything put by Vacosea, except take out small details due to BLP issues (changing of "cheated three times" to "cheated", or changing "separated for more than two years" to "separated", as these are sourced to breaking news reports). Has Vacosea done anything wrong? No; these are editorial calls. Is Dustfreeworld required mandatorily to comment on the talk page of the article? Absolutely not. Is Dustfreeworld's warning to Vacosea uncalled for? Well, yeah... I think Dustfreeworld did not realise the impact that such a template may cause to an editor who is excitedly placing, whatever can be sourced, into the article. Like what is mentioned above, it is an editorial issue and need not be discussed here. Vacosea, request Dustfreeworld again to give his pov on the article's talk page. For future disputes, please follow the procedures listed out at dispute resolution. Thanks, Lourdes 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld said there was speculation/wrong information, but they have offered nothing to question the reports. Allegations of Rockowitz cheating on Lee and their marriage problem were covered before [64] [65], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [66]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant "one more time", see context from previous comments. Vacosea (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, out of the 30+ edits made by User:Vacosea to the article Coco Lee, 16 of them involved removal of content, most of which was added by me. You can see that from the page’s history [67]. And yes, I DO think that “Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time”, too. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This does not explain their refusal to check with the sources and engage in discussion, and placing a warning template on my talk page about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information. It just goes on to show the contradictory and ever changing nature of their complaint. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree DustFreeworld answered a reasonable request to discuss with a warning template, that is treading into personal attack territory. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually no, scrub that, the warning came first, it wasn't warranted, but it wasn't in response to the request to discuss. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the clarification Boynamedsue :) Perhaps you can strike that as well? In case people may misread. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually the warning [68] came after the talk section [69] [70]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.

• 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175089915

They misinterpreted the source as “Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home” (in the source it said Lee moved out of their previous home).

So I added the “Cite check” template to call for source verification:

• 22:52, 12 September 2023

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175121745

My edit summary: Added { {Cite check} } tag. The page now reads: “Lee and her husband had been separated for more than two years before she died . . . In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home”? And the source cited mentioned nothing about “early 2023”. I think there maybe more. . . WP:GROWNUPS

What I mean is, if they had separated in 2021, how can THEY moved out of their previous home together in 2023? It’s simply wrong, and the wrong information was added by User:Vacosea.

After that edit of mine, User:Vacosea posted the “verification” they mentioned above to the article talk page and also edited the article and added a parameter (talk=September 2023 verification) to the Cite check template

Cite check|date=September 2023|talk=September 2023 verification

And then, they edited the article again to removed the wrong information they added, per what I had pointed out:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175233034
  • From: In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home.
  • To: In early 2023, Lee reportedly moved out of her previous home.

In short, they KNEW they were wrong on that, had corrected it and had posted a “verification” on talk (that post is somewhat redundant IMHO, but now I know how it can be used). I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue). NOW I know I was wrong. I never anticipated that it will turn into an accusation of ME being incompetent. They knew they had put in wrong information to the article and they knew why the template was added but still make such false and misleading accusations (that I didn’t engage on talk and show “incompetence”). I suspect there maybe behavioural issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of my edits were accurate. After the cite check, I adjusted some details. Moving out and separating are not always the same thing anyway. On the other hand, Dustfreeworld didn't seem to have checked with any sources before reverting other information again, even though I showed the sources for correction, including early 2023/early this year. They placed a warning template, out of nowhere, about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information on my talk page. Just because their talk page has received many notices from other editors in the past doesn't mean they should be doing that with mine. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Those who are interested in Coco Lee’s marriage and what problematic content User:Vacosea had added may visit the talk page. I have posted some old evidence that support those. If you want the latest BREAKING news, 20 September 2023 (no, not old news), here you are:

• https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/256329/Husband's-'affair'-triggered-Coco's-downward-spiral
  • “The couple started to live separately on October 15, 2022” - you said they had separated for 2 years?
  • “A month after Lee filed the divorce application Rockowitz issued a response through his lawyer admitting his affair in 2017, but not the continuation of the affair his wife mentioned.” - He only admitted having cheated on Lee once.”

I’m very doubtful about their saying that “The vast majority of my edits were accurate”, respectfully.

From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

And User:Vacosea is still adding the contentious and likely wrong information to the article today. Surely this is not the first time that this user is warned on sourcing and content additions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1158777818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1165129803

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1176765896

I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [71], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [72][73], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [74] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [75] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve posted on the BLP notice board as well: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Coco Lee. I believe the issue is important as it may have real life consequences on the financial arrangements of the subjects’ family, and that the dubious information may also be defamatory. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"... It's important for an editor to be able to point out stuff that is potentially defamatory. We might actually be effecting a chilling effect by telling editors to not point out such stuff. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No. We can do that without using legally-charged words. BLP covers it sufficiently, we do not need to use "defamation" / "libel". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

“A discussion as to whether material is libelousis not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” WP:NLT --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Key words: a discussion about, not just lobbing the word into a comment and leaving it there like a ticking time bomb. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [76]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vacosea May I reiterate what another user said above: “Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity”. Thanks :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The one who is engaging in baseless personal attack is Dustfreeworld, however hard they try to change the subject or reframe around it. Vacosea (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you are trying to make use of the “Goebbels effect” (or “big lie technique”), in the hope that “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. But experiments tell us that it won’t,

• ″For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable … the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies″.
  • https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And IMHO, what’s more important is that, people who are able to make the right judgement (believe the actual facts) may also have very negative impressions on those who keep repeating the lies (no matter those are organisations, governments or individual). Besides thinking that those are liars, people may also think that they are not reasonable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that, when you are being accused of making personal attacks, it is probably better not to respond by comparing the other party to a genocidal war criminal. Also, ixnay on the rolltay word, would have thought that was obvious, especially here. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Boynamedsue. No, it’s not a comparison of any party to anyone, definitely not. The term . . . Effect just come up in a webpage and it sounds like a professional psychological term to me so I used it. I’m just describing a psychological phenomenon. No offence indeed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Repost just to add highlight:

From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier

(add: and I believe no consensus on talk is required before the deletion as it’s contentious topic) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Repost just to add highlight:

I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't read your mind from edit summaries only or a warning template [77] if you skip discussion on the talk page [78], even though you were active on Coco Lee and other articles and talk pages, including ones I was also editing [79]. The times cheated and separation time were not "another issue" or "corrected". They had been there since early on, through all the time you placed your recent death template [80], was reverted [81], and your cite check template [82]. "No consesus on talk is required before the deletion", while you could argue for it, is a very recent new point. Vacosea (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a content dispute where both users became quite aerated at different times. It's been moved back to the talkpage, so perhaps this should be closed now? It is just a parallel venue for argument. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see some potential behavior issues that resemble forum shopping [83] (not because they posted there per se but their focus on linking to this ANI) and canvassing [84] (in the edit summary). They may have couched their aspersion of "lie"/"lies"/"liar" here, but repeat it so often that it feels gamey [85] [86]. Overconfident in their ability but quick to cast suspicion [87] [88]. Excessive text and highlighting [89][90] dance around the fact of their baseless personal attack [91] and what has been described as [92]. Vacosea (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What I see is you keep linking to the BLP board.

No it’s not canvassing. It’s an attempt to let the other user know that, it’s possible that what they had suspected two months ago maybe true. As for your translations, I still find them suspicious after a second look. And I hope you are happy with your excessive linking. If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [93] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [94]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [95]. Those edits were unrelated to this, and when you attempted to raise suspicion about my translation, you did not comprehend the source material fully. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be my first edit on August 23 [96]. The number of citations Dustfreeworld kept could make short sentences. Multiple empty section templates had been added since August 2 [97]. I'm not out to get anyone and can take their word for it. What motivated me to come here, beside their warning template and skipping discussion, was that overall, what they were doing defied any easy explanation, at least to me looking from the outside. Vacosea (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Which one was false? Vacosea (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost all are false. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

More than a week after saying similar things [98], you have not provided evidence. See Accusing others of bad faith. Vacosea (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, but then I know I was wrong and is am deeply disappointed. [99][100] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you are not getting the point. I'm talking about your claim that I lied or falsely accused you deliberately [101] [102]. Vacosea (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Even new discussion about edits are turned into "false allegations" and "misinformation" [103] [104]. This last sentence may be why [105] and what's influencing their outlook. Vacosea (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion reminds me of children fighting incessantly in the back seat of the station wagon during a family road trip. "Just cut it out ... Don't make me pull this car over!" Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, there are completely evidence free accusations being thrown around without care. This is not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  (Don't tell me s01 is going to get archived now... Lourdes 06:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC))

  Someone close this and let the highlighted paragraphs go back to the talk page.... And if anyone is willing, keep an eye there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Archived..... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Lourdes 06:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Now with an RfC in progress, they are repeating suggestions [106] [107] about how their comments were "altered". I put their wall of text into sections, that was all, and why would anyone think they began the poll after I began the RfC? Dustfreeworld has also made changes again [108] in a way that makes parts of the RfC no longer match the article, after there have been responses to it already, and after I told them to wait for it to end following their first time at this attempt [109]. What they are saying "much" or "serious misrepresentation" about the RfC, telling "anyone who is reading" not to reply to it, is misleading and unduely influencing the process. Vacosea (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the kids are still bickering in the back. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. May I suggest you read these?

• WP:RFCBEFORE
• WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, WP:INTERPOLATE, WP:TALKNO
• [110] (my edit summary)

Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe more experienced editors Lourdes HandThatFeeds CapnJackSp Cbl62 can answer one question, what would you do if someone were to tell other editors not to participate in an RfC, start another section bypassing it, suggest that you have deliberately made false accusations [111], lied [112], added misinformation [113] related to some Chinese entity, or insinuate someone is editing on behalf of it [114]. I think even with "children bickering", there are lines that should not be crossed. Vacosea (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Christ, we're dragging this out further? What I would do at this point is suggest you both step away from the article and let others handle it for a while. There's been no appetite for sanctioning either of you up until now, but this should've died out last week. WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been following that suggestion and trying to let more editors in. You can check the article's history and talk page from last two weeks to see who held the stick.

If nothing described here is actually sanctionable, then say so for the benefit of all editors now and in the future who do not understand the mechanisms here as well as you do. Vacosea (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine. I went through the linked comments. I would propose here that both @Dustfreeworld and @Vacosea can make one final comment to the RFC summarising their points and no more. The rfc is mostly them fighting and is the main pain point here.

Additional comments regarding the RFC procedure - @Vacosea your last line here [115] regarding what editors should be aware of vis a vis guidelines is not exactly in line with neutral starting statement. Also, you should have structured as votes and discussion separately from the start and if you wanted a change midway, it should only be done with consent of those who had already voted. @Dustfreeworld Im think your comments could also be edited to fit the new format, so it was not exactly the hill to die on.

About the article in general, it is very poorly written. It doesnt even mention her death in the lead, and weird grammatical mistakes that usually happen when its drive by editing rather than a coherent writeup.

Beyond this I dont think any action necessary, if participants want to escalate its up to them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Had I known Dustfreeworld's response becomes 20 new lines signed 9 different times, yes, I would have started the RfC with separate sections. The statement about BLP, maybe not worded in the best way, links to the response to Dustfreeworld's request from an uninvolved editor on the BLP board, which was in addition to the discussions on Coco Lee's talk page.

If they keep editing [116] the sections related to the RfC [117] [118], are the changes going to be reverted if the RfC passes in the future, under any of the versions proposed back on October 8? Making changes this way without waiting for consensus only increases the potential for more disputes in the future, which an RfC is supposed to reduce. Vacosea (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the RfC has decimated into a mirror image of the bickering between you both, I don't believe any editor will invest time to comment there. I am leaving this message just to let you know that the RfC is, for all practical purposes, a non-starter/ender. Lourdes 06:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The credit would go to Dustfreeworld's several hundred word response, twice the size of everyone else's put together. Vacosea (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad to know that you’re still here after I haven’t replied for four days. Sorry if I’m too keen on discussing how to improve the article at the article’s talk page. It seems to me that you are very good at mathematics. Perhaps you would like to count how many links you’ve added to this discussion as well. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And some of us thought your long responses were having the opposite effect on the talk page, must be worried over nothing then. Vacosea (talk) 14:43, 23 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.

Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk · contribs) personal attacks and insisting to remove cn tags on Coat of arms of Lebanon

There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the coat of arms of Lebanon, here Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Lebanon#Coat_of_arms and here Talk:Lebanon#Coat_of_Arms_2. However this user is edit warring based on his original research, and removes the cn tags regarding the "coat of arms" claiming I'm spamming links, instead of providing proper evidence. Also on the talk page, [119] he's calling You seem to be heavily biased in all of this however, spamming this page with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps, we need someone else that isn't as heavily invested in this as you are to decide which is a personal attack. I'm saying the page is wp:or, he calls Prove it.[120] failing to understand. What am I supposed to prove? Beshogur (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think two edits over several days is really considered edit warring, although I may be wrong. Also, I removed seven of the eleven cn tags that were being spammed all over the page in question, which is a very small article to begin with. It's very hard to read that page with them all over the place. And the last bit, I too would like to know what wp:or proves. Which part exactly? You've yet to answer.

Also, you could have put this on my talk page or tried something else other than coming here immediately. But I guess it's too late for that now.So I just thought I 'd point out that Beshogur has several archived pages of other users discussing his disruptive edits. Not sure if that helps figure out what is going on here or not. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:EW, 2 edits over several days could indeed be edit warring. More to the point, it shouldn't be necessary for someone to put something on your talk page as an experienced editor. There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk pages which you should continue to participate in rather than trying to force through your edits without consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean casual discussions on my talk page archive?

You're mislabeling these emblems as "coat of arms of Lebanon" on x emblem/flag. Which is not true. You still haven't provided an evidence this being coat of arms of Lebanon. Beshogur (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not mislabeling anything. That's literally the name of the article. Putting a cn warning after everytime the term "coat of arms" is used is spam. It's already front and center on top, and in the relevant areas in the infobox and first paragraph. Why do you need to spam it seven more times across the eight image descriptions? The article isn't even one page long. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's literally the name of the article doesn't matter. The article name Emblem of Turkey is wrong as well. I asked for a requested move. Beshogur (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, and when the move occurs put the warnings back. Until then, what is the point of seven more cn tags other than to make the article unreadable? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I can hardly call this an article. Beshogur (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:EW, 2 edits over several days could indeed be edit warring. More to the point, it shouldn't be necessary for someone to put something on your talk page as an experienced editor. There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk pages which you should continue to participate in rather than trying to force through your preferred version without consensus. If the two of you cannot achieve consensus among yourselves and existing participants, then use some form of WP:Dispute resolution rather than simply continuing to try and force your version and hope the other side gives up. That said, I do agree this doesn't belong on ANI. Beshogur also should have tried some form of dispute resoluton rather than coming here. (If you refused to participate in any form of dispute resolution or continue the discussion yet continued to try and force your version in, then it might be suitable to bring it to ANI but it's way too early for that.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: there is nothing to dispute. Those pictures are random pictures of Lebanese embassies, with OR descriptions. Also the sources present are random sources with texts like "coat of arms is also present on x emblem", which the sources do not even mention. There is one legit source, that's from 1973, and it's most likely not even a RS. There is no single official Lebanese source claiming this is the coat of arms or emblem. I'm trying to explain this all the time. I am planning to move the page to Emblems of Lebanon. There isn't a rule in the world that a country must have an emblem. Beshogur (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What if I came with "Emblem of Turkey also present on Turkish flag / random ministry emblem". This can not be acceptable. Sadly moderators do not check the content itself. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You would need proof, like the government using these symbols. Which is what the government of Lebanon is doing with the symbol is question is several different areas - military, president's office, and embassies. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your personal definition of what constitutes an emblem or a coat of arms isn't really relevant from what Ive seen. Many people disagree with you, I think maybe three or four others, hence why it was never moved. To try and push these changes before any consensus is made is wrong and should be reverted. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your personal definition of what constitutes an emblem or a coat of arms never moved? I didn't even open a requested move, what are you saying? Largoplazo (talk · contribs) told you The cedar is obviously a common motif used in representations of Lebanon (such as the flag), but is it, itself, considered an emblem? If not, then we shouldn't present it as such. as well as Furius (talk · contribs) extrapolating from those to the claim that the cedar is the official coat of arms/symbol/emblem of Lebanon is WP:OR told these. Falsely claiming that other users disagree isn't going to help. Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about your push to have the article deleted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coat_of_arms_of_Lebanon Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

First I doubted Wkpdsrnm2023 suitable for editing here, now I doubt you User:Beshogur's suitability. There's clearly a content dispute here. If you're unable to accept that, then you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires editors to be able to accept sometimes they may disagree in good faith about whether the sources available may establish something or not and they therefore need to listen to what the other side is saying and if you still disagree with their PoV, explaining why you feel your interpretation is correct. And if you are unable to convince the other editor by yourself, seeking the help of others achieve some sort of consensus. Intrinsic in this is that each editor needs to be willing to accept that their interpretation of the sources and how to handle them in accordance with our policies and guidelines might be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe can you check the content yourself. Others users have pointed this WP:OR as well. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I may have a clue as to what the reaction from Beshogur was all about. After digging a little bit, it seems that they are adamant that Turkey has no official coat of arms for whatever reason, it seems to be one of their main prerogatives and I don't understand why but they even mentioned the subject here in this ANI thread about Lebanon. They've been involved in renaming articles and images about Turkey's emblems and they're trying to do this for other countries' symbols and coats of arms as well, for Lebanon as in this thread's case but also in France's article, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=France&diff=1170195837&oldid=1170066091.

I think the reason why they are doing this is to normalize the idea that some countries don't have coats of arms so that Turkey doesn't stand alone on this issue. Now, this is all just a hypothesis, and I could be wrong but I looked into Turkey's coat of arms situation and it seems as if Beshogur is actually aware that there is an official coat of arms for Turkey as stated on the Turkish president's website, as they stated here about a year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey/Archive_35#National_Amblem%2FCoat_of_Arms_of_Turkey. According to the link on that talk page, it says (in Turkish): "Arma / Güvenlik Alanı : Arma, Cumhurbașkanlığı’nın ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin amblemi niteliğindedir." which translates to "Coat of Arms / Security Area: The coat of arms is the emblem of the Presidency and the Republic of Turkey.". As they stated in the linked comment, "Interestingly the English version doesn't mention this, while the construction sheet mentions this several times. [15] and doesn't appear in 2020 version. Not sure when they did change this." so they are aware of this fact.

Again, this is all a hypothesis but I believe that Beshogur is trying to cover this information up and even go as far as trying to rename articles and images, even other countries' articles, to support this idea that "There isn't a rule in the world that a country must have an emblem" as they stated previously. Now, is this correct Beshogur? If not, then you wouldn't have any issues with me bringing this up on Turkey's talk page as well as all of the other relevant pages so that we can figure out what's happening, would you? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The translation is wrong. Do you even speak Turkish? Nitelik rather means attribution. Don't mislead people. Beshogur (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

hypothesis but I believe that Beshogur is trying to cover this information up and even go as far as trying to rename articles and images, even other countries' articles, to support this idea lol what kind of conspiracy is this? Beshogur (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nitelik isn't used there, niteliğindedir is. So far the only person misleading anyone is the one quoting things that aren't there. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You know agglutinative languages exist? What kind of nonsense is this. Beshogur (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, until you can prove otherwise the translation is correct. Here's several translations to back up what I said:

[121] [122] [123] Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:SurferSquall

In a discussion about the reliability of planespotters.net, SurferSquall has shown a variety of disruptive behavior. In a similar discussion back in July, SurferSquall was asked to follow the consensus set at WP:PLANESPOTTERS, in which planespotters.net was found to be unreliable. In October, SurferSquall re-added a planespotters.net source to Etihad Airways fleet with the edit summary "WP:PLANESPOTTERS does not meet WP:CON and thus cannot be used as justification", not only ignoring consensus, but outright rejecting it. This prompted the current discussion, where SurferSquall assumed bad faith and alleged that several editors had "some odd personal vendetta" against planespotters.net, twice. After that, SurferSquall seemed to make a genuine attempt to get the consensus changed, but was still overwhelmingly against planespotters.net being a reliable source. Nonetheless, SurferSquall continued with WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE behavior, including reopening the discussion after it was closed (with a rather ironic summary that the wording of the close was "quite defeatest"), tagging WP:PLANESPOTTERS, an archived WP:RSN discussion, with a POV tag, and stating that the consensus needs to change. SurferSquall appears to be a clear case of WP:CIR, so it might be time for a block to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup. An utterly ridiculous refusal to comply with clear consensus. This is disruptive, and at absolute minimum a topic ban is needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked SurferSquall for one week for disruptive editing. Discussion can continue about the possible topic ban recommended by AndyTheGrump. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban is needed, to make sure the disruption does not return; this guy is persistent and doesn't understand either half of "No". (FWIW I endorse all that ZLEA has said, in detail. There are many archived discussions, including here (WP:PLANESPOTTERS), here, here and here - the last two of which SurferSquall participated in. All these discussions are linked from the Aircraft WikiProject guide on Common sources to avoid, and this user is well aware of them. Yet they persist in trying to push their PoV past our thoroughly tried-and-tested community consensus. This is wilfully WP:DISRUPTIVE and needs to be stopped permanently.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

They completely refuse to get it at this point and refuse to follow community consensus on this point. At this time their sealioning on this topic and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK are indistinguishable from trolling. Topic ban from aviation I think at a minimum, but considering their inability to communicate with other editors in a collegial and WP:AGF manner an indef could be a discussion point. (Remember indef is indefinite, not permanent, and they would need to convince the community at large that there would be no repeat of their behaviour if unblocked rather than just serving out a time.) Canterbury Tail talk 19:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Andy's proposal seems reasonable. SurferSquall was blocked 3 times since May, as his talk page shows, and all three blocks were due to his behavior in the aviation topic. And that's not to mention the collection of warnings he has amounted from multiple other users before. Also, this June thread, where people were complaining about the same behavior that this user continues to display to this day, was opened only about a week after SurferSquall was blocked for edit warring and then unblocked after promising to behave. SparklyNights 23:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban at minimum... In June, it was suspected case of WP:IDHT and/or WP:CIR. But now, he really proved himself. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeeks, I didn't realise it was that bad. It is clear that a permanent block is the only way. If promises to behave mean nothing then how can anybody ever be confident to lift an indef block? And if a mere topic ban, then what topic will trigger this behaviour next time? He's even still dickering about the subject on his own talk page, as the only place accessible to him! Enough! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten or was not aware of much of SurferSquall’s history before the July discussion. I wish I had seen it sooner. I don’t believe a topic ban will be enough, as this user has shown zero regard for consensus and I believe they would treat a topic ban similarly. I believe that an indef block is the only way to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The user had been blocked before, and they insisted on pushing their own vision and opinions over a collaborative environment. I also think that just a topic ban will not be enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Please on Nakba denial

Experienced editors are kindly asked to keep an eye on this recently recreated article dealing with a highly controversial subject with significant potential NPOV issues. Article has been EC protected by another admin. Full disclosure I am WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently being discussed at WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Now sent to AFD. Unless there are behavioral issues with participating editors, I'm not sure there is much else to do here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion it's impossible to assume good faith here and it is a case of willful POV pushing. The creator of the article (Iskandar323) is too intelligent not to realize that this article entirely omitted any competing point of view on the foundation of Israel, its causes and its justifications, and that the premise of the article itself excludes any such views being included there as they will not use its loaded terminology. I would go so far to say that this may be a blatant, calculated attack on Wikipedia due to international events.

Please see This (my edits except for one or two by Dimadick) and this (which Iskandar323 did at my prompting). Iskandar and Trilletrollet are even tagteaming to keep the "who" tags off of the completely unattributed quotes under the premise the reader can deduce the attribution of any of a string of quotes by the following footnoted citation (when it could be the author, it could be someone the author is quoting, it could be any use of quotation marks).

The article willfully takes the point of view that Israel is wrongful in its foundation, the Palestinians are victims, and there is no other POV. I see this as done by design. I realize I may not be AGF but I cannot AGF when all the hallmarks of bad faith are there. This is no accident.

Whether the article topic is plausible or not (I think it is a POV fork and designed as such) the version I encountered initially [124] is not something any competent, good faith editor should ever introduce to Wikipedia.

Stated as fact in Wikivoice: Such narratives blame the the victims of settler colonial violence for their expulsion. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is starting to get incredibly tedious. DIYeditor has been constantly assuming bad faith and delivering personal attacks to other editors. Hopefully this will be a WP:BOOMERANG moment. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Explain why you were tag teaming[125][126] to remove my flagging of unattributed quotes with {{who}}, leaving them apparently in quasi-Wikivoice or unattributed, contrary to MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and all normal Wikipedia style? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't tag teaming, I just didn't agree with your revert. Sometimes 2 people can have the same opinion, not everything is a conspiracy. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Tag teaming is a fact and AFAIK not allowed under 1RR or WP:EDITWAR. I'm not saying you're working together beyond the fact that you did work together. Do you care to justify your opinion there, what's your belief that quotes need not be attributed based on? Just personal opinion? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The unevidenced accusation of WP:TAGTEAMING is but the latest installment of this editor's incivility. It seems like almost every other talk page comment from them is filled with some form of invective, and it's frankly getting tiresome. A WP:BOOMERANG would be highly appropriate at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

How can there be a BOOMERANG from bringing light to an editor who made this and who fights along with another editor to keep the quotes from even being attributed in text? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The number and to some extent the tone, of comments made at the noticeboard at the AfD and here (along with a claim that you don't really know much about the subject) are a cause for concern imo. Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if taken out of context. Why should I need to be an expert on this topic or familiar with it? I'm not even being allowed to introduce views from published and widely cited scholars in the field[127][128][129]. We are not relying on my knowledge of the topic (basically none), I just noticed an extreme, extreme POV violation (stating opinions as facts in Wikivoice) along with misuse of quotes in a mystifying way. I'm desperate here to salvage some semblance of NPOV, I admit it, and if ANI thinks I should just walk away, so be it. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A case in point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

an editor who made this

@DIYeditor, you have linked to an edit by Iskandar323 in which they added a single space character. Is that really the edit you are trying to point to as an example? CodeTalker (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean that page version as a whole, with the issues I have pointed out via other diffs, and repeatedly explained. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"We are not relying on my knowledge of the topic (basically none)" Wait a minute. Do you mean that you have never read texts on relevant topics, or that you have never worked on articles on relevant topics? Dimadick (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To differentiate fact from opinion requires no special knowledge. I have passing familiarity with the history of modern Israel.

• Fact: Israel displaced Palestinians.
• Opinion: Israel was wrong or culpable for displacing Palestinians.

Culpability could be determined by an international court though. Wrongness could only be determined by a person's own opinion, or God's if they believe in that. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is wrongful in its foundation, the Palestinians are victims" Your point being? The Palestinians have been facing an illegal occupation of their areas for decades, and Israel is little more than a project of European colonialism in the area. The Balfour Declaration (1917) has caused bloodshed for more than a century. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly a POV, but the nullification of the legitimacy of Israel is not a universally held fact, versus say the Nazi Holocaust or Armenian Genocide. To equate it to such blurs the line between fact and opinion. Further, even in articles on the most heinous topics, we usually do not get into attributions of right and wrong, just or unjust, we simply report opinions as they exist. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've done a little work on the article, it still needs some work but not to the point where I think suspending AFG is reasonable. There is significant coverage here even if you don't agree with what that coverage has to say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the article allow for opposing points of view on the foundation of Israel and its causes and justifications if they are not explicitly phrased in terms of "Nakba denial"?

Even just addressing the NPOV issues could go a long way. I am more concerned with drawing attention to the atrocious NPOV violation that the original version was, some way, some how. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That would seem off topic, an on-topic source would use Nakba denial or similar even if they did not endorse the concept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems problematic to me. If the phrasing of the "topic" of the article precludes competing points of view on the objective topic, isn't it possibly a POV fork? Let's say I start a "God denial" article and the only sources that talk about "God denial" are religious advocates, can I express the overwhelming POV of those who talk about "God denial" in Wikipedia's voice as fact? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention Nakba denial or similar then it isn't a competing points of view on the objective topic... Its a point of view about a different topic. We don't only have sources from Palestinian advocates. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a total "God denial" situation. No atheist philosopher is going to talk about "God denial" yet they have competing points of view with the people who do talk about "Denying God". Potential POV fork for this reason. But this is a content issue, not behavioral, and this board is for behavioral issues. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it normal for an administrator to come to ANI requesting backup with a highly subjective framing of the issue? Is that really how things work here? Didnt think so. nableezy - 21:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the extremity of the NPOV issues in the initial versions of the article, I felt this was somewhere in between NPOV/N, AFD and behavioral (AN/I), leaning toward behavioral. Can't speak for Ad Orientem. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor I have not acted at any time as an admin with respect to the article in question due being WP:INVOLVED. My request for extra eyes here was based on concerns which I have explained both at NPOVN and at the AfD discussion. I also posted neutrally worded requests for experienced editors to chime in on the talk pages of the Wiki-projects Israel and Palestine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy I assume. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So what was the urgent incident that needed administrative assistance with here? nableezy - 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What looked like, and still does, POV editing. There is nothing unusual about requesting extra eyes from experienced editors on articles where there appears to be problematic editing. I recently made a similar request for extra eyes on RMS Republic (1903) where I was also involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And this claim of POV editing has been substantiated with citations to reliable sources showing a POV problem, right? Right? nableezy - 21:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see this (my edits except for one or two by Dimadick) and this (which Iskandar323 did at my prompting). It's the blurring of fact, Wikivoice, and opinion, which seems to be intentional. If not intentional, I'm mystified as why it happened, because Iskandar seems intelligent. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thats not a good edit, which is also why people should understand the topics they are editing before pressing save page. nableezy - 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you familiar with MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? When do we use quotes, extensively in this case, without attributing them in text? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I assure you there is not a single WP policy page I am not familiar with. Are you familiar with any of the sourcing on this topic? You can start with, for example, footnote 44 for why your phrasing of what is held to be is itself the NPOV violation there. You cant manufacture disputes that dont exist and claim what there is no dispute about is a POV, and you certainly cant determine what is a POV or what is undisputed fact in a complex topic area based on feeling and intuition. nableezy - 23:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

All scholars in the "God denial" field say that God is definitely real, therefore it is a fact to be stated in Wikivoice for the God denial article. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah Ill let that comment stand for itself. nableezy - 23:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously the subject of ongoing discussion at AfD and NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So there was no evidence for any issue, instead there were claims of POV that have yet to be anywhere close to substantiated and are still closer to WP:ASPERSIONS than they are to evidence based accusations. Thanks. nableezy - 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well. you are certainly entitled to your opinion, which you have not been reserved about expressing. I will confine myself to noting that based on the commentary at the discussions at NPOVN and AfD, I am hardly alone in my concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are not alone in making unsubstantiated allegations and then being unable to later substantiate them. I agree with that entirely. There is at least one more person doing it in this very thread for that matter. Thought we had rules against that though. nableezy - 23:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you should perhaps take a deep breath. Your own commentary might reasonably be seen as being a bit snarky and lacking in AGF. Operating on the basis of "I'm right and everybody who disagrees with me is wrong and acting in bad faith" is not usually conducive to a collegial discussion of differing opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Im not operating on such a basis. I am however operating under the assumption that accusations of wrongdoing against editors, and yes purposefully POV-pushing is an accusation of wrongdoing as well as lacking in AGF, require evidence. Not one bit of evidence has been presented. Just bogus accusations made, apparently without the slightest familiarity with the sources. Oh, and Im totally calm. The condescension in that opening isnt exactly conducive to a collegial discussion of differing opinions. nableezy - 23:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

My customary practice when I run into situations where I have concerns is to open a discussion, post my concerns and then invite other experienced editors to chime in. After which I usually sit back and await the opinions of my colleagues. Sometimes my concerns are validated, and sometimes not. However the discussion goes, I try to extend courtesy and respect both to individual editors and also to the final consensus. Usually that courtesy is reciprocated. I regret that this does not appear to be the case here. Under the circumstances I think it would be best if we agreed that we disagree and move on. This back and forth has reached a point where I no longer think it is productive, and seems to be veering towards personal acrimony. Have a good evening. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Well in case you would like some constructive feedback, it certainly didn't feel particularly respectful, or courteous, to this individual editor, to have a page immediately slapped with tags, hastily noted as a "Huge NPOV Fail" on talk and dragged to both WP:NPOVN and WP:ANI within 24 hours of the content going up (possibly within 5 hours if I'm getting the timestamps correct), having barely had time to breathe, and without even a chirrup on my talk page or any real substantiation of the issues at hand on the talk page either. If that is your showing respect, may I never feel the wrath of your disrespect. I hadn't realised that you were an administrator before I saw the mention here in this thread, and I wouldn't have expected it from the paucity of direct communication and open dialogue that I received from you along this chain of events. When I pinged you on the talk page for details of the issues, I heard nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO the page was, and remains a POVFORK with the tags being entirely appropriate. I did in fact receive your ping which I responded to with my comment at the NPOVN discussion. However, I see that I forgot to alert you on the talk page that I had commented there. That was a failure on my part for which I apologize. As for the issues, obviously the NPOV matter remains under discussion. Regards the AfD, conceding that the discussion still has at least four days to run and setting aside my own opinion on the merits, as of right now it looks like it is heading for either a weak keep or no consensus which is effectively the same thing. That could change of course. But given the volume of commentary already generated, a wave of negative !votes would be needed to swing the discussion. My experience at AfD suggests that is unlikely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope your take-away, AO, is not to go to ANI with an NPOV problem in the future. It's particularly hypocritical when you're telling other people to dial down the temperature, etc. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Phrased like AO did, perhaps, as a simple NPOV issue. This still appears to me to be a possible case of intentional POV pushing and ADVOCACY. The same can't be said for AO's actions or in my opinion mine. Some people here seem dead set on phrasing opinions as facts, which is not something Wikipedia does, and either cannot differentiate opinion from fact, or do not wish to do so. Also the edit warring to keep quotes from even being attributed at all (again, we do not just drop quoted material into sentences without saying who is being quoted, the quotation marks are not enough) is bizarre and speaks to a behavioral problem.

Am I trying to make anything say that it is a fact that Israel was justified in displacing Palestine? Nope, never tried to do that and would not. Other people (Iskandar, nableezy, dimadick) seem to see it as a fact that Israel is wrong and not justified and are intent on it being portrayed as such. That's textbook ADVOCACY. Judgments of right and wrong are not facts and even in the most heinous articles we don't typically use that phrasing. Culpability is AFAIK something that can be determined by courts of law, or at least overwhelming consensus across a broad spectrum of researchers and possible viewpoints, and by and large needs to be clearly attributed. Some editors fought tooth and nail against that. And they seem to be getting away with it.

I went into the situation considering it a simple NPOV issue then I looked at the article in detail, and I am still not sure everyone giving these editors a pass looked at the version I first encountered in detail. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now there is actually an incident requiring administrative attention. DIYeditor has repeatedly accused others of improper behavior without evidence. When exactly is WP:ASPERSIONS going to be enforced for this crap? nableezy - 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I have clearly and repeatedly given the evidence, and I said "seem" meaning I am stating how things appear to me, not what the facts are. Again I suspect an inability or unwillingness to differentiate between statements of fact and opinion. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the earlier call of Trilletrollet for a boomerang at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage might appear to be a fake article or violate WP:UP#NOTSUITED if you want to get into necessary actions. BOOMERANG indeed. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gratuitous commentary of that sort is exactly the reason why I think a boomerang is in order. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? Am I seeing things or does your user page blatantly violate Wikipedia guidelines? That's a gratuitous observation? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to file a complaint. And yes, it is. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The topics in your user page are actually directly related to the topics of this ANI thread. If you cannot see the violation, refuse to see it, or don't care, that speaks to your own willingness to interpret and follow Wikipedia guidelines. You won't fix it yourself, I have to take it to MFD or something? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that is more relevant to this ANI and any calls for sanctions here. It's a behavioral issue. I think you should just fix it yourself now that it's been brought to your attention that you may not use those templates in that fashion. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone clue me in on what's wrong with Self's userpage? Levivich (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOTSUITED (uses article templates, "part of a series" etc., on a non-article user page) or a "fake article" which I have seen discussed at MFD but I am not immediately finding the rules or deletion criteria about. Isn't it obvious? I already cited NOTSUITED so are you just ignoring that, didn't see it, disagree, or what? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nav templates? You need to back off, stop harassing other editors, and go find something productive to do, or you will find yourself voted off the island before long. Levivich (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The joys of Wikidemocracy indeed, never mind the written rules, it's actually rule by faction and popularity contest. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area. These "discussions" have been horrible for my mental health (which was already bad to begin with). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear it. As I said to another editor, I am deeply saddened by all of this and I think I understand what you are feeling. Hope you feel better and find your way to any topics you find interesting, including this if that may be. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trilletrollet Although we have differing views on this matter, I completely understand. Since the events of Oct 7th emotions have been running high on the WP:CT/A-I related articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually going to follow suit and disengage from all Palestinian-Arab conflict articles because I find sectarian conflicts extremely distasteful and disturbing, it is not my fight, it is not conductive to mental health, and it is not what I want to do with my time on Wikipedia. There are much more rewarding things to work on that actually feel good and like something worthwhile is being accomplished. I will address any more issues related to this ANI thread. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm comfortable just letting this thread die. The article is in much better shape now and presumably will continue to improve now that it has the attention of a wider array of editors. What I encountered when I first saw it:

• Nakba denial is the denial of Zionist culpability for the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, the displacement event that Palestinians refer to, along with its accompanying impacts, as the "Nakba" or "catastrophe".

What it says now:

• According to some historians and academics, there exists a form of historical negationism that pertains to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight.

We are moving in the right direction. Thanks to all for their attention and input. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting long term block and rev/deletion of comments

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.

---

• 45.237.49.1 (talk · contribs) Has contributed nothing other than personal attacks and hate speech [130]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

1 mo. Lourdes 06:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment [131] requires further admin/Steward level attention (maybe [email protected] should look at it?). <redacted> I doubt it is serious but this is not something to let go without notifying someone. This is above my pay grade. // Timothy :: talk  06:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:41, 24 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.

Sinwiki12 constantly reverted for making inaccurate changes to articles concerning China

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.

---

Sinwiki12 just made a change to the Wikipedia article for China that removed a mention of the 1989 Tiananmen square protests. I reverted this change and noticed that this account continuously makes changes to articles concerning China that are reverted for inaccurate or completely incorrect information. With the amount of reverts and warnings on their talk page, I think it's clear something needs to be done. Progenitor Eri (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

heads up!!

remember to notify sinwiki of this thread, like i've done a few seconds before replying here cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost every edit was disruptive. Indefinitely blocked, and tracking their talk page. Lourdes 06:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Progenitor Eri (talk) 07:22, 24 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.

TheAnaheimDude

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

This user is repeatedly adding-and-removing tens of thousands of bytes from the Evercade article, in a matter that I feel is disruptive. However, it isn't quite AIV-level vandalism. Hopefully an admin can address the situation. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've partial blocked them from the page. They can make a case to get their access to it reinstated. The curious thing is there definitely feels like an overlap with User:MasterStudentGamer who has been doing the same. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Duo? of editors making pompous/excessive or otherwise odd edits to articles

Creativityhuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Evanwilliams1121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are making similar kinds of unhelpful edits to articles, mainly related to health care, in a pattern that seems like an attempt to avoid an outright block. They have been messaged repeatedly, but continue the same behavior. Most of their work has been reverted, by myself and other editors.

Here's examples of what's happening:

1. The main problem is these editors using the wiki for a creative writing exercise (or perhaps the application of AI query results), transposing already reasonable encyclopedic text into affected, pompous, or excessive language.
   1. Creativityhuman: [132], [133], [134], [135] (esp. laughable) and many more
   2. Evanwilliams1121: [136], [137], many others
   3. Both accounts mucking with Healthcare in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. A secondary problem is converting English to US standards where they don't belong.
   1. [138], [139] (twice in a row)
3. And there's some outright vandalism:
   1. [140] - not that much, but given they're the same editor, it adds to the pile of issues.

It is my estimation that this user or users are not here to build an encyclopedia. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve blocked both. No responses on their talk pages to warnings, etc Doug Weller talk 19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. If indeed they are the same person, I hope that somehow their IP address can be watched for the creation of additional accounts, something I suspect with Creativityhuman being created after Evanwilliams1121 was challenged. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. I’ll cu tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Now it appears to be a trio. See Conference meetings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a couple examples: [141], [142]

Conference meetings was editing in articles CreativityHuman previously touched (second example above is one), and in an article later touched by Evanwilliams1121 ([143]), and in an article touched by both ([144]). Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I just discovered the already blocked and globally locked GeorgeBlair01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in similar kinds of edits. And the new account Farkthurd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was caught quickly after two edits. So this is definitely a user who keeps coming back for more, doing the same kind of malicious editing. Can we block account creation from their IP(s) for a limited period? It sure would save work for other editors. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can IP block as there seem to be too many IPs. I've CU blocked 7 so far. I think they are all related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Applus2021 but am checking. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is Applus2021. Evanwilliams1121, GeorgeBlair01 and Adamhoffman29 are three more confirmed socks with similar behavior. We've managed to catch this lot before they spammed their pet topic. MER-C 16:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate remark

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.

---

Objective3000 made some uncalled for comment [145] some folks thought it was a bit out there, like a "bizarre accusation". Someone else even mentioned it seemed like the editor were accusing editors of Islamophobia.

I reached out to the editor on their talk page, reminding them to be cautious in sensitive discussions [146] they replied by questioning whether other editors were okay with their contributions, without acknowledging their own potential mistakes [147] So I added this [148] The conversation then shifted towards the blame game [149] I reiterated that it's odd they're shifting the blame to other editors without acknowledging any possible errors on their part [150] The editor proposed getting administrators involved [151].

That's the situation we find ourselves in. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the situation we find ourselves is that my post ended with an improvement to the article (1,919 character reduction). I was nice enough to not bring an editor here for the false accusation that I accused anyone of Islamophobia as I respect the editor's work and they did not push it after my response. My reason for starting the thread was because an editor added more text about beheadings even while it was under discussion. But I did not revert that editor or bring that editor here. The editor who complained about my initial edit did not continue after I responded and the discussion proceeded normally, which is more than I can say for most discussions on that TP. Infinity Knight then came to my TP. I politely and repeatedly explained the importance of WP policies and guidelines. But Infinity Knight seems to be tightly holding on to a stick. I would not say that I actually proposed wasting admin time. I just gave the standard answer to someone repeatedly claiming editor misconduct for no reason. BTW, that page could do with some admin mediation. But, I've seen a couple of admins indicate they're not getting near it. A sane decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see Knight started a discussion on SMcCandlish's TP with the same title and same type of complaint last week User talk:SMcCandlish#Greetings, which also appears to have been off base. Perhaps a suggestion that Knight refrain from such activity might reduce wasted time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it crystal clear, do you have a beef with the terms "bizarre accusation" and "accusing editors of Islamophobia for arguing for some inclusion of the topic is not helpful"? Before, you mentioned that "editors have broken the rules on WP:CIV and WP:AGF." Why did they drop those words in response to your comment? Can you break it down for me? Infinity Knight (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I explained this on my TP and on the ATP; but you only included out of context diffs. As for why one editor misread what I typed; you are asking the wrong person. They did not respond to my response. Instead, the discussion continued and a 1,919 reduction improving the article was made to an article where editors have been complaining about length. What's really odd is that you were not even in that discussion. I probably shouldn't have responded here and really have better things to do then repeat explanations already made. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice Infinity Knight (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about the "one editor misread what I typed" explanation, as we have the diffs for two editors right above. We've already gone through the WP:V and WP:RS concerns with Objective3000 here amended, discussing sources like BBC and EFE. But what's Objective3000's next move? They open a new section and dive into the topic of Islamophobia. It'll be interesting to see what the administrators make of this. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI is not about content disputes. And, you didn't even dispute what I posted in the thread -- in the thread itself. But what's Objective3000's next move? They open a new section and dive into the topic of Islamophobia. So now, at ANI, you are accusing me of future actions that I have never given any thought to? I am not asking for a WP:boomerang given the editor's lack of experience, just that this stop. But, this is a boring timesink. WP:IDHT WP:BLUDGEON WP:CIR O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not up for a lengthy back-and-forth with you. Let's see community's take on User:Hemiauchenia and User:Jprg1966 comments. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I found Objective3000's mention of Islamophobia (or ""inflaming") as the "only reason" for the inclusion of the Hamas beheading allegations to be a presumption of bad faith. To argue that page content is Islamophobic, but not the editors who placed it there or argued for its retention, is ... fraught. We're all trying to edit in accordance with policy, and the answers are not always as obvious as saying "follow policy X". All that being said, I don't think anyone's conduct in this situation requires AN/I solutions. We all, myself included, can stand to take a step back and examine how we can improve the tone of discussion on what is a very contentious article. As someone who's made many edits to this article based on talk page suggestions, I would like to see discussions that focus very specifically on page content and as little as possible on the motives of other editors. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Infinity Knight (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I found Objective3000's mention of Islamophobia (or "inflaming") as the "only reason" for the inclusion of the Hamas beheading allegations to be a presumption of bad faith. Jprg1966, I made no such claim. Not only did I not claim it was the "only reason" (your emphasis), I did not claim it was "any reason" (my emphasis). Again, I clearly stated that using an unverified trope 18 times results in the article looking that way. In no way did I accuse any editor of anything. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no desire to be involved in this. Nothing anybody said in that discussion is worthy of any form of sanction. I would advise Infinity Knight to avoid opening ANI threads like this and instead open arbitration enforcement sections instead for Israel-Palestine related issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close this thread and WP:BOOMERANG WP:TROUT for Infinity Knight. IK, ANI is reserved for intractable disputes, persistent or severe violations of behavioural norms, or other forms of major WP:DISRUPTION, and nothing you have brought here even remotely qualifies for crossing such a threshold. And that's true even if there was cause to see a minor violation of community expectations in the mode of Objective3000's communication--and in this instance, I'm not even seeing that, if I am blunt. I've reviewed the entirety of the dispute presented here, and I find nothing per se objectionable in the manner in which Objective raised their concerns about this content issue.

First off, O3K's comment was that, given the facts and sourcing, the content in question caused "the article" to appear to be Islamophobic (to their eye, anyway). That is not remotely the same thing as accusing editors (let alone a specific editor by way of a specific action) of being Islamophobic, or of such editors conducting themselves here in a fashion dictated by such a bias. Errors (be they defined by bias or other concerns) can creep into articles quite irrespective of a concerted plan of POV editing. Being able to describe our content frankly (even if it offends the sense of editorial or personal rectitude of editors who contributed to that content) is not just permitted, it's absolutely vital to our iterative and consensus-based processes.

Furthermore, even if Objective had been more direct in implying that there was active bias by certain editors in that space, that would not constitute a per se policy either. So long as they didn't cross the line into casting WP:ASPERSIONS about specific violations of behavioural policies or content standards that they (Objective) could not support with evidence, such observations are not just fairplay, but in fact frequently necessary to call the spade for a spade, when it comes to a piece of content appearing askew as regards NPOV. This is not just a regular, expected, and functionally unavoidable consequence of our processes for even the most mundane content, but also particularly necessary as a safeguard where it comes to topics which may be influenced by implicit bias.

The standard you suggest (that one cannot allude to the possibility of an apparent bias in a bit of content, using even the vaguest language that doesn't even imply any specific editorial fault), is utterly unworkable on this project, even (if not especially) for CTOP areas. Even the making of so much of a mountain out of so little of a molehill, as you have done here, has potential to chill discussion in areas where we need volunteers to be able to speak candidly about their perspectives, provided they keep them within the confines of conduct, both as regards general policy and the elevated GS standards.

And you can't just up-jump concerns here by vaguely implying that "multiple editors" voiced the perspective that the comment is unfair. The Israel-Hamas conflict is at the moment the most contentious single topic on the project, for obvious reasons. You can't stake the slightest of positions there just now without running afoul of the perspective of someone willing to tell you as much, often while taking umbrage about the disrespect shown to a conclusion that happens to align with their own outlook. More (much more) is needed in terms of substantive violation of policy or community expectations in order to justify a discussion here.

What seems to have happened in this instance is that you went to Objective's talk page with what you felt was a reasonable observation about rhetoric--and though I can't say as I agree with your assessment there, you were at least polite and apparently operating in good faith. And Objective's responses were consistently of a similar tone. However, after several back-and-forths where O3K just was not convinced by your outlook, and refused to concede to your stance, you should have dropped the stick there. Instead, apparently feeling you were entitled to some sort of concession on this debate, you escalated the matter here, despite a complete lack of context that justifies such a reaction, or evidence of a violation of project norms that comes anywhere close to demanding community attention. In short, I'm much more concerned about your judgment in relation to this little tempest in a teapot affair than I am Objective's, and I strongly suggest you withdraw the complaint and agree to disagree. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I'm grateful for your response. It's evident O3K's comment stated that, based on the facts and sources, the content in question made "the article" seem Islamophobic, at least in their perspective. O3K did not specifically reference any particular editor; they solely noted that after certain "changes" "the article" appeared to be Islamophobic. Is expressing such an opinion significantly below the threshold of acceptable conduct? I apologize, does it make sense to me? Frankly, I'm not entirely certain. Hence, I am retracting the complain and opting to hold differing opinions. Thank you for diving into this topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for receiving my thoughts in the spirit they were intended, Infinity Knight. For what it's worth, I think there is a good argument for keeping reference to these accusations in the article, with attribution, whatever the factual and social factors behind the severing of heads and the reports and rumors associated therewith (good grief this project gives you occasion to make some grisly statements on occasion).

I think whether one believes there is some basis in fact about these claims, or if one believes they are complete misinformation and claptrap, we should be able to agree that Wikipedia has a role in discussing and contextualizing such extraordinary claims, providing the reader with the best information possible to arrive at their own conclusions about just what did or did not happen. The Streisand Effect applies here and I think we have to unfortunately engage with these topics, no matter how much we'd like to bury them by leveraging WEIGHT/RS a little heavier than normal to make the NPOV process a little easier and cleaner. So I hope consensus will continue to lean in that middle path direction.

I also think there's a reasonable argument to be made to use *-phobia terms sparingly (even sometimes in cases where one feels relatively confident it is genuinely at play). But it's even more important (in my opinion and I believe that of most of the community at large) that there not be unreasonable restraints on an editor sharing such an opinion with candor, if they feel it is appropriate when discussing a bit of content itself. Now, every rule has its exceptions, so I'm not saying such descriptions can't be considered disruptive if habitually abused by someone clearly operating in bad faith, but in this instance everything O3K said, they were permitted to. I understand you taking a shot at convincing them to use a less lightning-rod-like description of the issues, but their choice was still well within the span of reasonable commentary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I hope it's alright to pose a couple more questions:

• Is it considered appropriate to point out specific differences and edits and declare them as 'racist changes'? Could you please confirm? You said "the content in question caused 'the article' to appeared to be Islamophobic" to O3K. Can you elucidate the distinction between the scenario described and the O3K diffs presented above?
• Do you perceive any rationale behind User:Jprg1966's statement: 'to accuse editors of Islamophobia for advocating the inclusion of a certain topic is not helpful' Moreover, regarding Jprg1966 contribution earlier in this conversation, did you observe it, and would you be willing to provide your perspective on it?

I also had the impression that, especially in a highly sensitive and controversial topics, we should exercise greater caution, emphasizing exceptional civility and conduct to prevent the escalation of tensions. In my humble view, focusing exclusively on whether those changes are perceived as 'racist' by some or not might not be the most productive approach. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer the other editors question that is seen in that initial diff, yes it does matter if people are actually beheaded or not if it's not factual information and it's being used in conversations. If editors are throwing around tropes in talk that are used in way which dehumanises an ethnic group then that is problematic and it should cease. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath Agree on if editors are using tropes in their discussion that dehumanize an ethnic group, that is a concern, and such behavior should be stopped. I believe WP:NPA addresses such situations:

• Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

If we consider that serious accusations may have been made, inflaming, according to User:Jprg1966 above. I'm unclear about where to locate the serious evidence (diffs) provided by O3K. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The only person here that has made accusations about another editor is you. I made no accusation against any editor or group of editors. Period. My comments are all aimed at a content issue, verifiability, and how this comes across to the reader. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If you were this sensitive about insinuations, why do you make comments like this? This whole thread reminds me of this one, in which the same editor will not let go of what they think they can use against an editor. Similar to this which they claimed constituted a warning against an editor here. At a certain point one has to wonder if it is trolling, cluelessness, or pursuit of a vendetta that makes the complainant here unable or unwilling to drop something when it is clear they are not getting their way. But also, at a certain point it stops mattering and something should be done to make them stop. nableezy - 14:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Please Close and rapidly introduce Infinity Knight to raw seafood. The original post carries no real accusations of violated policy. IK themselves stated "I don't see it as a personal attack" and has delegated the perception of issues to some folks and someone else. Objective3000 stated that they felt the article currently had a non-neutral appearance, and happened to do so by using an icky word. Was it the best word to use? Probably not, but I invite anyone who actually believes they were accused of Islamophobia to please feel welcome in adding your perspective to this thread. Absent that, this seems like IK did not get the "mea culpa" they desired out of O3000 on their talk page, over the course of a reasonable discussion, and came here to try and force one. This report hinges on the worst possible interpretation of a comment on an article's status. Unless Infinity Knight can cogently articulate what behavior of O3000's they (not someone else) believe violates policy and is chronic and intractable, there is absolutely nothing to be gained here. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:56, 24 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:Kamil Hasenfeller

Kamil Hasenfeller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE seems to apply, per almost their entire brief editing history. Persistent trolling: there there are multiple examples of off-topic nonsense being posted on obscure talk pages[152][153][154][155] Reverting with nonsensical edit summaries:[156] Competence issues (note the inability to take note of what they have been told, and the incessant switching between arguing for a specific change to a specific infobox and claiming that they merely want to learn how to edit templates, making a sensible discussion impossible): [157][158] Outright vandalism: [159] If this contributor has made any useful edits, they are clearly outweighed by the many negatives. One gets the distinct impression that Kamil Hasenfeller has mistaken Wikipedia for social media. Possibly Reddit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to be given a little to organise a defence. And the assumption of bad faith from Andy seems extremelly problematic.

I will keep it concise. Trying to complete wikipedia as in [190] , it might be an error but I had read long ago, not on an english page of wikipedia that the requirements to be Dalai Lama were:

The page has most of its space uncomplete.

1. Not to have killed a lama
2. Not to have killed someone

Be it an error, I think sometimes errors are allowed.

About the infobox: I do not see why I am a troll. I was genuinely trying to see how to edit infoboxes, then the discussion shifted on "I think it's a

Essays are not "Obscure pages" I did read them because I found them read-worthy, and I think it is why they're on Wikipedia.. I would also Andy not to call "crap", I think it's biting to newcomers. And saying something in a jocular & concise manner is not necessarily trolling.

Here above Andy mentionned an essay WP:NOTHERE, I would like to mention the essays: WP:Civility, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH (There more exemplary, ways than calling an edit crap, be it or not the case), WP:HUMOUR

Since Andy said "One more revert and you go to ANI" I have effectively stopped using reverts.

To stick with wikipedia guidelines about being concise, I will stop here. WP:CONCISE Kamil Hasenfeller (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If the above isn't an attempt to justify outright vandalism, it is either trolling or a clear demonstration of lack of competence. Given that functionally it makes no difference which is the case, I'd suggest an indefinite block would now be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support indef. —Alalch E. 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've checkuser blocked the account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 and HighBeam

S. Rich has been removing |via= and |subscription= from citations related to HighBeam for over a month. Discussions on their talk page User_talk:Srich32977#HighBeam_edits and at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Subscription_and_via,_when_link_is_dead. Multiple editors are against it (User:GreenC, User:Isaidnoway, User:Mr.choppers, User:DIYeditor). Nobody but S. Rich is for it. Thus consensus is against it per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Requesting they immediately stop, until consensus is established. They are operating at a large scale Special:Contributions/Srich32977. I have recommended they stop editing multiple times (last attempt), but they continue, contrary to the present SNOW majority of multiple editors. -- GreenC 22:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I find this very concerning as well, especially considered the scale, and that I found that not only were the edits misguided in premise, in some cases they were actually corrupting citation templates. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. DIYeditor pointed out how some of my edits caused format problems. Those errors were corrected. (And DIYeditor was satisfied with my explanation of my project.) So I've been more careful in my work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

GreenC and the others cannot or will not discern between which of my edits are acceptable and which are not. (They have not reverted any of them.) Indeed, this notice itself is defective in that it seems to combine the "via" and "subscription" parameters. Do they mean that all of the "via" parameters should stay in citations? Or should all of the "subscription" parameters stay in the citations? Or that only those edits involving the combination of "via" and "subscription" fixes are improper? In the commentary cited above they basically say they don't like what I've been doing. (Except that they cannot say what editing guidance is being violated.) Another point -- there is no SNOW here. I've had editors send thanks for my edits. – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Srich32977 has done something like this. They tried doing this with ISBN hyphenation but were rebuked here and you can see people's exasperation with Srich's edits at the end. People "thanking" you for edits is meaningless. When multiple editors tell you to stop doing something, you stop doing them. End of story. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What a lousy argument! People thanking me is "meaningless", but 2 or 3 or 4 editors presenting vague objections becomes a multitude. – S. Rich (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The thanking feature has no bearing on Wikipedia's editorial decisions/discussions. People have been banned in the past for trolling with/misusing the thanking feature. It's meaningless. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't feel helpful at all; it's like removing cites to the Rocky Mountain News in Denver-related articles under the specious argument that 'it no longer exists'; you'd be rightfully reverted and warned. We shouldn't be penalizing a former source with removal of credit for the sin of being acquired and merged into another database. These links aren't broken and just feel like busywork and edit number-padding better spent on actual writing rather than needless pruning, and this 'clutter' is in the references section, which isn't visible in article text. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize my HighBeam edits (and close this controversy):

1. [160] – remove "via=HighBeam" from cite news template. Rationale – the original HighBeam url is dead and the archive url remains. Editors clicking either one will see they are HighBeam related. They do not see that the archive url content is a fragment unless they open it.
2. [161] – remove the "{{Subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}}" from the |publisher=AScribe {{Subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}} citation. Rationale: A "subscription" is not required to access the HighBeam archive url. Nor does Ascribe require a subscription. There is no Ascribe-url being presented.
3. [162] – remove the |via=HighBeam Research |url-access=subscription parameters from the citation. Rationale: same as #2 above. One uses a citation "url-access" parameter for subscription access and the other uses a citation required template.
4. [163] – Remove the dead HighBeam url plus the "warnings" about the url. (There is no archive url.) Rationale: the HighBeam url is dead and cannot be recovered. Rather than leave it there, it's better to leave the original publication data (Women's Wear Daily etc., thus satisfying WP:V.

• So some of the controversy deals with "via" {{Template:Cite web}} says the following: "via: Name of the content deliverer (if different from publisher). via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail. It may be used when the content deliverer (e.g. NewsBank) presents the source in a format different from the original, when the URL provided does not make clear the identity of the deliverer, where no URL or DOI is available (EBSCO), or if the deliverer requests attribution." MY OBSERVATIONS:

1. HighBeam was once the "content deliverer" for the material. But no longer. Highbeam was never the publisher of any material.
2. Using "via" is optional ("may be used when") under four conditions:
   1. "the content deliverer ... presents the source in a different format..." This would require a look at the HighBeam cited material and original source. But we don't have access to the original.
   2. "when the URL provided does not make clear ...". This does not apply because there is no URL provided for the original.
   3. "where there is no URL available ..." This applies to the edits concerned. (And, again, is optional.)
   4. "the deliverer requests attribution.

SO: Item # 3 seems to apply. And with this in mind I will limit/discontinue my removal of the "via=HighBeam"s from the citations. Will this be of any benefit to the readers? I don't think so. It is just clutter in the citation. I will, however, continue to remove the "subscription" admonitions. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: the collapsed section: ANI is for reporting and resolving behavior problems, not to resolve content disputes. That is what the other linked pages above are for. You said in the above collapse section: "I will limit/discontinue my removal of the "via=HighBeam"s. I will, however, continue to remove the "subscription" admonitions." As Mr. choppers said below, hold off removing either until consensus is resolved. -- GreenC 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hold off until consensus has been reached.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

S. Rich says the objections are "vague". But the objections are clear:

• "If those two specific parameters (|via= and |subscription=) are not harming anything, they shouldn't be removed." (User:Isaidnoway) [164]
• "Definitely leave in the |via= field, agnostic on the rest." (User:Mr.choppers) [165]
• "Please stop removing via until you have consensus" (User:GreenC) [166]

Removing |via= and/or |subscription= from HighBeam citations is controversial. ANI is for reporting behavior problems. He needs to stop removing |via= and/or |subscription= from HighBeam citations until there is clear consensus for removal. We have established S. Rich's editing is both controversial, and without consensus, concerning the removal of |via= and/or |subscription= from HighBeam citations. -- GreenC 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

GreenC is moving the goalpost. Originally the objection was about removing the "via" and "subscription" parameters. Now the objection is about removing either the "via" or "subscription" parameters. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What difference does it make? It's like saying consensus is against removing |via=, but it's OK to remove |via= + |subscription= because there was no consensus about that combination. What will you say next, it's OK to remove |via= + {{subscription required}} because we didn't mention that template. Your arguments are specious with endless pedantic permutations. In fact your "goalpost" is to stop removing either one of these parameters, in any combination, or anything to do with subscription and via (when there is a dead link), until you have consensus. -- GreenC 17:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• You said at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Yes, this is a clutter-removal project. And I think it comports with WP:DEADLINK. Need more be said? How does your removal of these two parameters comport with DEADLNK? Based on the guidance at DEADLINK, shouldn't you be 'trying to repair a dead link'. For instance, in this recent edit of yours, a quick search with the headline found this source, which supports that quote. Here's another one, that you could have fixed with a quick search, source. I see more value in trying to fix the dead links, than this "clutter-removal project". You say you don't think its of any benefit to the reader, (leaving these parameters intact) but doesn't leaving those two parameters intact inform the reader that the source was obtained through a subscription to HighBeam? Even though the link is dead, at least the reader knows where it came from. 👻 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Srich32977, are you okay to stop removing the (|via= and |subscription=) parameters unless you can show evidence of clear consensus obtained at a relevant community forum for such removal? Doing otherwise will be considered disruptive and immediately blockable. Please let us know. Thank you, Lourdes 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I said above I'd stop removing the "via" parameters. My statement was commented out as off-topic. I restored it. Again, I will say it. "When a citation says 'via HighBeam' I will leave it as is. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no consensus to remove via OR subscription. The latest comment by administrator User:Aoidh: "concerning the subscription parameter I don't see how removing it when the link is dead would be helpful". -- GreenC 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since I was pinged I do want to stress that my being an administrator isn't relevant to that discussion, as I was only giving an opinion as an editor but I do think a consensus should be established before continuing the mass removal of either parameter. - Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Srich32977, I will ask you once again - are you okay to stop removing the (|via= and |subscription=) parameters unless you can show evidence of clear consensus obtained at a relevant community forum for such removal? Lourdes 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I invite you all to look at this edit: [167]. It avoids the "via" parameter because the archived HB story is a partial rendition. Also, using a Template:Link note enables editors to add a note about the HB archive without saying a subscription is required for access. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  So it appears you're not okay with stopping the removal of the (|via= and |subscription=) parameters? Is that correct? Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You know, these parameters are optional (see Help:Citation Style 1). And I've been doing a lot of these edits on GA and FA articles, which are closely followed – I believe no one has reverted my edits on those articles. Moreover, the WP:BRD process invites us to make the fixes we think will improve articles – then we can discuss if we disagree about the revert. I have modified my editing practice. One, I'm looking for alternative sources for the HighBeam archives. The Free Library is one such source. Two, when the HighBeam excerpt does not have text which actually supports the WP text, I'll note that in my edit summary and/or as an editor comment. Three, I'm using the link note template with the citation templates and explaining what the HighBeam archive link is. So you are incorrect – I have stopped removing the "via" AND "subscription" notations. Four: I will try to add "free" as an "access indicator" when appropriate (But I don't see how that would help since the HighBeam archive articles do not require registration or subscription.) Still, adding cites is actually quite complicated and demanding that an editor stop removing the "via" and "subscription" notations does not address such complications. Indeed, Help talk:Citation Style 1 has 90 pages of discussion! – S. Rich (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have stopped removing the "via" AND "subscription" notations. But yet in the diff you provided above, seen here, you did remove the |via= parameter - before and after. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So I removed the "via". It's an optional parameter! There was no "subscription" parameter involved, so the "AND" objection does not apply. Moreover, I added a link note that explained the status of the archived HighBeam. Will nothing satisfy you? – S. Rich (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

But you could have left the via= parameter intact like this, correct:

Ethridge, Mary (1998-02-14). "Ohio's F.W. Albrecht Grocery Co. to Sell Acme Express Division to CVS". Akron Beacon Journal. Knight Rider/Tribune Business News. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05. Retrieved 2019-04-16 – via partial rendition of HighBeam.com archived story.

It looks like to me you're just avoiding and/or ignoring the issue raised here about your removal of these parameters, and are just bound and determined to do it your way. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. According to S. Rich, he agrees not to remove via AND subscription, but he will remove via OR subscription. There is no consensus to remove either one, in whatever combination. He is playing semantic games, wasting time, being disruptive. -- GreenC 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• While this ANI thread is ongoing, S. Rich removed via and subscription here. They removed subscription here. They are removing links "because they are dead and don't have an archive"[168], contrary to WP:Link_rot#Keeping_dead_links. S. Rich is doing all sorts of unusual stuff to citations and being overly literal and argumentative. Mixed in with some good stuff. It's a case of WP:INCOMPETENCE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. -- GreenC 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I'm not sure of the current situation but judging by recent comments above it is necessary that this stops. I will block you if any further fiddling with citations occurs in the absence of a clear consensus on a project talk page (e.g. Help talk:Citation Style 1). Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this a WP:GAME violation?

Ghsuturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who only had 20 edits as of the 10 of October 2023, began mass adding "Category:Members of Skull and Bones" (which they created) and "Category:Benjamin Franklin Medal (Franklin Institute) laureates" to articles, seemingly to get over the ECP barrier, making over 500 edits adding both categories. Once they had done so, they immediately began making controversial edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area, such as the decision to undrafity Nazism in Palestinian society. Is this a violation of Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_of_permissions? While the edits aren't necessarily unconstructive, the intent clearly appears to be circumvention of the ECP barrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly seems to violate the spirit of WP:PGAME. Also, gnomish editing until it's I-P time is such a classic sock move that I'm hoping a stray CheckUser might chance by this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. This is clear cut gaming and obviously not a new editor.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo Lol. A better solution than mine, I was removing ecp while you were blocking. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I considered the ECP option, but they're undoubtedly a sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

They're quite active at Hebrew Wikipedia [169], so personally I'm not so sure they're a sock. Since this conflict began I've seen quite a lot of Hebrew Wikipedia users cross over and start editing and commenting on enwiki about the conflict, who may only have infrequently edited English Wikipedia prior to that. Obviously some of these users are more disruptive than others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo: (or any other administrator) About Nazism in Palestinian society: Kindly reverse their disruptive move from draft (speedy redraftification in the context of the unnecessary AfD), and possibly salt the title.—Alalch E. 21:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The article has now been moved to draftspace, but where does this leave the AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazism in Palestinian society Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It just needs a procedural close. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The draft should be deleted as an ECR violation, the creator of it is not extended-confirmed, and I dont think Draft space is one of the exceptions to the EC restriction for ARBPIA. nableezy - 22:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a fairly long history, with a number of edits by EC editors, but it does look like all substantive content (i.e. not corrections, copy-edits, etc.) has been written by non-EC editors. Deletion under an ECR is a matter of admin discretion, but here seems warranted given the polarizing nature of the page. @ScottishFinnishRadish: you draftified the page; would you object to deletion? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No objections here. I was going to speedy it, but I didn't see a csd for "what fresh hell is this?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Some admins log ECR deletions as CSD G5, which is one way of looking at it policy-wise. Personally I just link to ARBECR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Both of those make sense. I'll let that in mind for the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple concerns re: user Cowboys01

• Cowboys01 (talk · contribs)

The first concern is the persistently promotional and WP:OR tone to their edits, not slowing down despite reversions and talk page notification. I'm starting to scan through some of the history, and wondering whether we're dealing with block evasion by

• LosAngeles000! (talk · contribs).

If so, we can pretty much go to WP:REVERTBAN on everything. If not, there's still plenty to deal with. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Confirmed and blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning indef IP blocks

Moved to WP:AN § Audit of indef IP blocks

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Long term POV disruptive editing at Zviad Gamsakhurdia

• Zviad Gamsakhurdia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A455bcd9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silveresc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long term POV DE edit warring in Zviad Gamsakhurdia and has continued through today in a DS area. Edit history is fragmented but there is an edit war. Please review article history. Silveresc seems to be the main problem. This I believe is the lst edit before the problem.  // Timothy :: talk  03:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Partial/2 weeks. Lourdes 05:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As recommended by Timothy, I note here, for the record, in case of any future ANI, what may constitute WP:PA:

• "Basically you are Armenian and your edits are all about Turkey and recently about Georgia with the aim of casting it in negative light."
• "Basically almost all your edit history is about Armenia and additionally unhealthy amount is about Turkey (in bad light), which might indicate something."

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Editors that make comments such as the ones above, are sure to see more of ANI.  // Timothy :: talk  09:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And they continue... "I mean, there is a reasonable doubt based on these evidences that the user is Armenian, but he may actually not be Armenian, just trying to stir tensions between Armenians and Georgians by writing such stuff, but I don't know, it is suspicious. (...) Well, he might be just anti-Georgian Armenian, I of course know many of them, but anyway, all of these are just my suspicions, I am not engaging in personal attacks, this is just a (very) reasonable doubt." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You only cherry picked the part which you liked, but did not include other part, where I explicitly stated that I was not attacking personally anyone, I was just thinking that you were Armenian because you specifically added "Armenophobia" while the person in question is not "notable for Armenophobia" (your addition) at all. Moreover, there was a similar pattern, that's why I noted that it was just "reasonable doubt" and that I was not personally attacking, I even noted that you may not be Armenian, I just thought that you may be though. It was just my opinion, not a personal attack meant against someone or insulting to Armenians either. I did not use "Armenian" as insult in here, so it is not a personal attack, it is just an opinion which I got from your your edit history, which was focused on Armenia. And for me the part of your edit history, which seemed to add many negative information about Turkey and Georgia, just seemed like an evidence that you are biased in this topic. Your nationality was not itself an evidence, it was just my opinion that might be Armenian, not meant as an insult. Even if admins block me, the truth is still truth that it was not meant as insult, but I can not do anything against block anyway, so go ahead.

I also want to note that there was a bad wording from me due to me not knowing English quite well. By "of course I know many of them", I just meant that I know many Armenians, not many anti-Georgian Armenians, for me, it just seemed weird that this user made anti-Georgian edit, that's why I noted it. I even write in the text that it seemed weird for me that he made anti-Georgian edit, I know Armenians and not many were anti-Georgian. So it was bad wording from me in this paragraph which the user cited, the paragraph meant to contain a different meaning.Silveresc (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So this is my full text, if admins decide to ban me, go ahead, but I did not mean this text as an insult, it was just my examination, but I really did deem his edits anti-Georgian, moreover, his emphasis on adding "Armenophobia" and his Armenian-related editing (including negative edits about Georgia and Turkey) made me thought that he was anti-Georgian xenophobic Armenian. I want to add that this is not a general opinion on Armenians, but specifically about this user, based on his edit history, I just thought he was anti-Georgian xenophobic. Reading out of context, without considering the discussion throughout 1 month, this can really be read as "personal attack" outside of context, but I don't think I can do anything about it anyway, just noting that someone might be Armenian is not an insult though, It was just my opinion.

I want to note also why I used term "pro-Armenian", without explanation, it really looks like a personal attack, but it is really not, but I don't expect anyone to dig up this long thread to find what happened. When this user started his disruptive editing on this page, he initially started it by adding that "Gamsakhurdia was known for Armenophobia"! Only later started he writing that "Gamsakhurdia was chauvinistic and xenophobic to everyone"! His initial motivation was to emphesize supposed "Armenophobia", but I managed to get hand on sources which he used and there was no mention of term Armenophobia, so he had to remove it, but he started even worse disruptive editing, now he added into article inflammatory buzzwords like "chauvinistic, xenophobic, hysterical" and etc! So his edits became even worse, now he tainted article with non-neutral information even more! I was actually surprised why would anyone rush here, to the page of Georgian national hero and write something like "He is known for Armenophobia" (What Armenophobia? He actually has even visited Armenia during his presidency and met Armenian President, who then said that Armenia and Georgia had constructive relations), but then I dig up his edit history, and all I saw was him editing Turkey-related pages, and writing bad stuff about Turkey there! I mean, there is a reasonable doubt based on these evidences that the user is Armenian, but he may actually not be Armenian, just trying to stir tensions between Armenians and Georgians by writing such stuff, but I don't know, it is suspicious. I can understand about Turkey since difficult Turkish-Armenian relations (although disruptive editing is still wrong), but why Georgia? Well, he might be just anti-Georgian Armenian, but anyway, I don't get why would he resort to being anti-Georgian, however, all of these are just my suspicions, I am not engaging in personal attacks, this is just a (very) reasonable doubt and I am just trying to show how non-neutral and biased he is by pointing out this fact.

• Comment: Problems continue, this time on Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), see User talk:Silveresc#Abkhazia.

I think this is some addition edit warring from this morning, [170], [171], [172]/[173]  // Timothy :: talk  17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC).

This is not edit warring, I did not make 4 edits in 24 hours, the last edit is me editing my own edits, I did not revert, I just edited my own edit by adding "and" in the end of sentence. So, it is not edit war. I made only 3 reverts and have not made any more edits so far at that page at all, so this claim is not true from this user.Silveresc (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, think I got all the diffs in order:

• Starting version: [174] as of 04:04, 22 October 2023 which you change "Most" to "All" here [175] at 05:01, 22 October 2023, and it is reverted here [176] to the stable version by Chipmunkdavis at 05:23, 22 October 2023
• Here [177] you change “Most” to all again at 05:24, 22 October 2023 and it is reverted here [178] by Kashmiri at 07:04, 22 October 2023
• Here [179] here you again change “Most” to all again at 09:43, 22 October 2023 and it was rv again here [180] by Chipmunkdavis at 19:58, 22 October 2023

3RR is the “bright line” WP:EW but edit warring is not limited to 3RR violations. I think this article is also covered under GS for Eastern Europe, 1RR restriction, and you were informed [181] here You were also warned in a similar article at User talk:Silveresc#Warning about edit warring on War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) page, and at User talk:Silveresc#June 7, 2023.

The community can decide if this is edit warring. If I'm wrong I will retract the point, but this is the same type of battle grounding and bludgeoning that took place on Zviad Gamsakhurdia.  // Timothy :: talk  23:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, after 3 edits, I purposefully stopped reverting so not to break rules about edit warring. This is despite the fact that another user still reverted my last version of the text. It looks like you visited my Talk page, carefully reading my discussions with other users, but if you read it carefuly enough, there is a last discussion, which took place during my editing of Abkhazia page. It was a related discussion to this one and you can read it and see that after being notified by a user, I avoided edit warring by agreeing with the user and removing information which I have added. I said in the end: "Ok, I will edit it. But I will find other sources that majority of countries recognizes it occupied." So I agreed to remove text before providing the other source. This shows my intentions to avoid edited warring. After being notified, I have tried to end edit warring. In this case too, I have avoided edit warring, I did not revert 4th time, so this is noteworthy.

About notification about contentious topics, the notification you are talking about, happened not in regards to Abkhazia page, but another page. I have not been notified about Abkhazia page and whether it is considered or not contentious topic.

Also, the fourth link you provided about my edit, appereantly shows that I did not revert, I just edited my own last edit and added "and" in another place. This can not be considered edit warring, but you still presented it as evidence of me edit warring. Then I objected, and you did not present any counter-argument, you started talking about 3 revert rule, implying that you agreed with me that I made only 3 reverts and my fourth edit was not a revert. But, based on the rules you have cited in this thread, it seems like you know Wikipedia rules quite well (better than me), so you should have known that my fourth edit (me editing my own last edit) is not a "revert" and can not be presented as edit warring, yet you did that. May I ask, why did you still do that, despite all of this? What exactly was you motivation with providing appereantly false information that my fourth edit was a "revert"? Silveresc (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I provided no false information. The revision at 09:41, 22 October 2023 has the statement "and many other sovereign states" and you change it to "all other sovereign states"[182].

The community can determine if the above and your overall edit history merits further action. I believe it does to prevent further disruption, preferably a tban from Eastern Europe broadly construed for repeated edit warring and battle grounding on Eastern European articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you are not telling truth right now. You have referenced this edit of mine [183] saying that it was edit war, but appereantly, in this edit I just edited my own text (previous version is also mine), there is no revert, I just changed position of "and" in the sentence. Yet you still falsely referenced this as an example of me engaging in "edit war" by reverting content, which is simply not true. Silveresc (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I get it, you want to ban me and exclude me from editing, it is pretty evident, thanks for clarifying your real motivation.Silveresc (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

By the matter of fact, all my edits which were added were with the only goal - to clarify Russia's illegal invasion and occupation of Georgia's territories, Russia's interference in Georgia's sovereign internal affairs to extend its influence - similarily to what's it is doing right now to Ukraine (before invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there was invasion of Georgia in 2008 - it has been clarified many times). Even though I have found significant opposition from some users, who, as I have read on Talk page, justify and support Russia's actions, I have tried to observe rules and have not reverted more than 3 times and abandoned situation not to engage in edit war. I tried to follow rules, but if there will be decision to ban me anyway, well, I don't think there is anything I can do, let it be.Silveresc (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not the content of your edits that is problematic, I am not involved in your content dispute, and do not care how it is resolved.

The problem is your behavior while editing. Period, nothing else. Edit warring, PAs, talk page bludgeoning, personal comments about the ethnicity and motivations of editors, an amazing number of reverted edits, and most of all NOTLISTENING to the multiple warnings and notices you have received. By looking at your talk page, this is the third page you have recently had this problem on.

If you are going to edit articles in the arc of territory from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, to North Africa and through the Middle East, to South Asia you are going to have change the way you interact with others and learn to build a consensus, even when its frustrating and bothersome because it's always frustrating and bothersome to build consensus.

As for wanting to ban you, why do you think this thread is still open? Why do you think you only received a slap on the wrist article time out to think and not a topic ban or complete ban? Maybe other editors want to give a chance to see the problem and change course and prevent a ban? Could it possibly be we are not all out to get you?

If you are banned it is because you didn't listen. My final reply, not worth any more pixels.  // Timothy :: talk  05:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• More disruptive editing today [184], now Silveresc has decided to switch the talk page discussion to Gerogian instead of English. Clearly not not done to help build a consensus in a ds/area, so this is just DE. Much of the content added is negative comments about other editors, not constructive discussion about the article, and reads like Silveresc is just having a discussion with themselves. They are doing this while still blocked from the article for DE. Silveresc also claims they are just waiting for a another ban,[185] so I think they are going to keep pushing buttons until they get their block. Everyday there is further disruption and this editor is NOTHERE and at a minimum needs a tban from Eastern Europe.  // Timothy :: talk  01:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I have switched to Georgian because I met another Georgian, but I did not think it was strictly forbidden, I have been notified though and have not continued to write in Georgian. Me saying that I was "waiting 2nd ban" was just sarcastic statement, which is clear if you are not reading it in bad faith. The content is not negative and added about other user, but comments are mostly about very absurd claim that Adjarians are ethnic minority in Georgia, while they are just ordinary Georgians. I have never seen Adjarian saying that he is not Georgian. The user remarked about that, so that's why I switched to Georgian because it was just a very Georgian thing to discuss and it was funny claim, but I did not know it was strictly forbidden to write in Georgian. The user who added that Adjarians are not ethnic Georgians has numerously added such absurd claims and keeps doing so, it will only make Wikipedia look as unreliable source in the eyes of the people, that article will surely be discredeted because everyone knowns that Adjarians are not ethnic minority, even Wikipedia's page about Adjarians confirms that. That user is just engaging in disruptive editing. So this comment of yours is in bad faith too. The disruption is done by another user, who you don't seem to have problem about. Appereantly insulting Georgians and Adjarians is not disruptive editing for you. But anyway, you have previously confirmed that your goal is just to ban me because you don't like what I write.Silveresc (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

IP's insistence on adding unverifiable information

IP 109.101.69.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on adding unverifiable content in the List of Jujutsu Kaisen characters article and other articles related to the series. This IP user justifies these additions by arguing that they found the information on sites like Fandom, MyAnimeList or Behind The Voice Actors; all these sites are user-submitted content based sites, and the IP user has been warned about it, but they just keep going. By the way, I noticed that the IP range 93.122.248.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which includes an IP user making similar edits in the same article (they are most likely the same user), has been recently blocked, so hopefully something can be done about it. Xexerss (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 mo partial. Lourdes 06:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from Sant Eshwer Foundation

• Sant Eshwer Foundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page abuse, please revoke TPA -Lemonaka‎ 11:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a beta test of my changed script, WD, if I mangled with something, please tell me. -Lemonaka‎ 11:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Their latest edit was merely to blank their talk page, which is not really abuse. If they post their spam there again, we can revisit. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor (likely)

Logi0256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has continued to recreate the same page that keeps getting deleted for being blatant spam, this user was given a COI warning on their talk page when the page was first created so I might be suspecting a paid editor but it could also be a COI. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is nothing urgent. Our normal editorial processes will handle it. Thanks, Lourdes 07:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comment

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.

---

At Talk:Race (human categorization) I wrote a comment questioning the value of one of the sources used to make a rather extreme statement in the article that "Modern science regards race as a social construct", sourced to an assertion by a popular-magazine journalist rather than any survey of the field. This comment was entirely with a view to either revising the text or finding better sources to support it, which seems to me to be exactly what talk pages are for. This comment was removed twice with accusations of "off topic" and "soapboxing".[186][187] Looking through the talk page archives we see this same group of editors who appear to favor one view in academia, and want for Wikipedia to present this as the only view. I am sure this is contrary to policy here. Some people have been saying it's time to "fix Wokipedia".[188] This looks like the kind of thing they are talking about. Richard Calthrope (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• LTA. Indef'd. Lourdes 08:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am one of the two editors who removed that off-topic comment from the talk page. I was just starting to write a reply. Now I can just say: Thank you for acting swiftly. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow. An Elon Musk troll. What a shock. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wokepedia is a different encyclopedia, the Uncyclopedia perhaps? Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 23 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.

Followup

Nord Rhein Westfailure (talk · contribs) made a personal attack on my talk page[189], obviously referring to the thread #Removal of talk page comment Richard Calthrope (talk · contribs) started here yesterday. Reeks of sockpuppetry. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That username is a parody of Nordrhein-Westfalen, and objectionable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

How oversensitive do you have to be to view that name as objectionable? 182.228.179.154 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

LTAs. Indef'd and def'd. Lourdes 07:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry, adding misinformation and hoaxes

• Most recently active IP: 109.228.71.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Other IPs: 37.122.170.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 77.222.31.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 78.155.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 109.228.110.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 109.228.77.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I previously filed a sockpuppet investigation but was told that cases without at least one registered account usually do not belong to sockpuppetry investigations. These IPs are/were run most likely by a single user and they added unsourced content (misinformation and hoaxes) and were involved in vandalism. I warned all of these IPs but they ignored the warnings, they later received temporary blocks but they continued editing under different IPs. I do not think that a temporary block would solve this issue because they keep coming back after their blocks, so I propose to either semi-protect the political articles they edited or to block the IP ranges. I am not an administrator so I would want to hear opinions from other editors and administrators regarding this situation which should be solved as soon as possible in order to stop the addition of misinformation to these articles. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for taking such an effort to maintain multiple pages. This is appreciated. Secondly, and with apologies, we are unable to block stale/discarded IPs, or block pages on stale disruptive editing (btw, please be careful to not rollback an edit as vandalism when it is a disruptive edit). For your benefit, have protected two pages with recent disruptive editing, and blocked a more recent disruptive IP for 2 weeks. You would need to visit our page protection desk for further protection requests (or come back here as soon as more disruption occurs). Thank you, Lourdes 06:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've requested ECP page protection for 2017 Serbian local elections too considering that the user is now editing under 62.4.55.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended done. Lourdes 09:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Elpresiobama

There's a user known as Elpresiobama who is repeatedly changing Lil Tay's birth date information from 2007 to 2009, completely ignoring the fact that they have failed to successfully debunk the sources in the article that support the 2007 date of birth.

I have tried to reason with them and explain to them that if a user believes that certain information that has been supported by reliable sources is incorrect, they should either seek a consensus on the article's talk page. Or they should provide sources that debunk the sources already present on the article page. But instead they are being rude and calling other users idiots. Not to mention they aren't keeping a level head. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for the pa. Will explain when they come around. Lourdes 09:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive behavior and disruptive editing by user:A455bcd9

• Zviad Gamsakhurdia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A455bcd9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over a period of time (since 5 October), the user:A455bcd9 has been engaged in battlegrounding behaviour and edit warring on Zviad Gamsakhurdia page ([190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197]). The goal of this was to attribute a particular slogan ("Georgia for the Georgians") to the person about whom the article is about, while the other users did not agree. After very long discussion on Talk page, and after sources have been provided that the person in question disassociated himself from the slogan and rejected it, the other user on Talk page suggested that we add in the article that while commentators attribute the slogan to the person, he himself never said it, disassociating from slogan [198]. The consensus has been achieved, after which user A455bcd9 has suggested the final version of the text to be added in the article [199], and other users agreed, after which the issue was seemingly resolved. However, today (after 2 days), the user has again edited the text, adding [200] that the person "supported it" [slogan], which radically changes the previous version of the text and overrides the previous consensus. This was done without asking opinion of other users on the Talk page and reaching new consensus. Moreover, the edit has not been explained in any way.

The user A455bcd9 has been notified about edit warring on Zviad Gamsakhurdia page 2 times [201] [202] on his Talk page, and was aware that the topic is contentious. This is confirmed by the comment of the user on Talk page, saying that the article is disputed, we should not make any changes without discussing on Talk page. [203] However, the editor still made changes to the article without discussing it and reaching consensus. Cutoc (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cutoc, you are seemingly bent on making an enemy out of an editor who is being supportive to hearing you out on the talk page of the said article. By opening this ANI, you might be accused of behaving in the abovementioned battleground behaviour. Yes, I have partially blocked another editor from the page a few days ago. But the objective was to promote talk page discussions, which are happening. All discussions go through ups and downs, and running to ANI to resolve an unresolved editorial dispute is not appropriate. Read up on dispute resolution procedures for future resolutions. But in my opinion, all you need to do is discuss editorial issues on the talk page (as you are doing) with supporting reliable sources, and seek consensus for your changes. As of now, this notification will not go anywhere, except increase the friction between you and A455bcd9. Let this rest. Thanks, Lourdes 07:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no words. Is there any other admin who can review this case?

I can assure you that have not been trying to make enemy out of A455bcd9, I have even defended this same editor from other editors on several occasions [204] [205] when I felt it was due. But in this case, I just felt frustrated that we have been discussing for such as long time (not just me, but many other users), we have finally achieved some kind of consensus, this editor agreed with it, the long-standing edit warring has been ended for some time, yet a few moments later this editor has arbitrarily overriden consensus without asking anyone anything and wrote his own (disputed) version of text. I don't feel like this editor has being supportive to hearing me out, I just feel like he made me to discuss every detail of my proposed edit by telling me "I think this article is now a disputed topic and, for the next few days, I suggest we reach consensus in the talk page before making changes", making me to write around 5 pages-long text to justify my point (starting from here), while he single-handly has overriden consensus without even asking opinions of other on Talk page and justifying his point. I have just lost faith in the process, I feel like even if I discuss and achieve consensus on Talk page, this editor might just override it arbitrarily and the effort will be just lost in vain. That discussion is around 30 pages long, I understand that it might be hard for admins to read everything, but I really tried to discourage everyone from edit warring, I have tried to take conciliatory approach, even though I don't agree with everything. But this very recent edit of this editor just makes me lose hope and think it is just unreasonable to discuss at Talk page, because it can be still overriden arbitrarily. Coupled with a long history of reverting back-and-forth and edit warring, which this user has, I feel that there should be some kind of deterrence, without which the bahaviour will continue and discussion will lose sense. I just feel like the recent edit of this user will just lead to edit warring, but of course I will not engage in edit war and I will still continue to discuss on Talk page everything, not least because I feel chilling effect right now because I was just threatened to get banned for something I really did not expect to. I feel like my concerns are legitimate, and although I might be wrong (everyone can be), I really feel this was not very user-friendly way from you to start your answer with a threat of ban. Even if I am wrong, I still expect to be explained why am I, and your explanation unfortunately does not seems like answering to my questions, because for me it seems to ommit many important things. I understand that you might not have been able to read all of that very long discussion on Talk page, I feel and understand you and your situation, but I just don't think you should have started your answer in that way. I hope you will understand and hear me out.

Moreover, you mentioned that you banned other user for the sake of deterrence of edit war and promoting discussion, but how does it helps to deterrence, to leave other users with a similar pattern of bahaviour totally without any sanction? The deterrence point you have made will just lose sense. -- Cutoc (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

HazemGM

HazemGM has been continuously been using IP addresses after the original account has been blocked. Since only recently as two days ago, @GiantSnowman: has blocked an IP range but the edits has continued from different IP ranges, such as edit 1 and edit 2. I only know that only one person appears to pointlessly add an underscore so it changes from fullname to full_name, which makes no difference to the preview and, having been consulted to ANI about rangeblocking, looking at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM, you can see a rough idea on what IP addresses have been used and to determine what would be the best rangeblock to use on these addresses beginning with 41 and 154. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: There seems to be another one at 102.44.109.199, same pattern of edits. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep, having a look at the edits myself, it does seem very likely that is also the same person. However, I have never noticed that group of IPs before if there were any. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

102 is the same editor I am sure, per DUCK and geolocation. GiantSnowman 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I further blocked the 105 on more evidence. Lourdes 07:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and blocking another IP. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

But, new IP addresses (154.180.220.67 and 154.180.90.163) have been found while doing my usual watchlist patrolling. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, looks like the 154 range is back in use by this editor. GiantSnowman 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on 2011 Rugby World Cup final 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.

---

Hello,

I am here to report that User:PeeJay keeps vandalising this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup_final

Could you please order him to stop?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldciusMenbug (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. "New Zealand won the game because of the referee" is something you'd expect to read in a fan forum, not an encyclopedia. Stop edit warring to insert content that is against the WP:NPOV policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@MoldciusMenbug You have also failed to notify either Pawnkingthree (talk · contribs) or PeeJay (talk · contribs) of this ANI report, even though the red notice on top clearly requires you to do so. Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia; calling a good faith revert "vandalism" is a serious breach of our assumption of good faith. This is very likely not going to end as you think it will. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It gets better, folks. Looking over MoldcuisMenbug's contribution history, of their 180 article space edits to date, a full third of them have been reverted. Seems that problematic edits and edit warring are staples of their activity. Ravenswing 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked MoldcuisMenbug for one week for disruptive editing. Among the many factors are edit warring, false accusations of vandalism, obsessive focus on criticizing a sports official, and failure to notify the editors reported at this noticeboard, though last one is the least of it. I have advised the editor to spend the next week studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, they changed their username from "MenciusMoldbug" to an obvious play on "Mencius Moldbug". XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 24 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.

Robailleo: Likely promotion-only account

• Robailleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Robail Yasrab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported Robailleo (talk · contribs · logs) at AIV as a promotion-only account, where HJ Mitchell commented that I might bring the matter to ANI, with the comment that edits do not appear to be in bad faith. This account has been around for a few years and this person only seems interested in adding content about himself to articles. While not explicitly in bath faith, I think the edits do show a narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business, so it would appear that he is WP:NOTHERE. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor is trying to make a Wikipedia page of himself in Draftspace. I will send him a message saying that there's no chance he gets approved until he meets WP:Academic, and to leave it for later in his career. Hopefully that is all that is required. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone block this vandal?

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

---

Rapid vandalism by Al Jazeera's role as Hamas' mouthpiece came from Hamas Gaza chief, Yahya Sinwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posting unsourced commentary about Al Jazeera and repeatedly readding it when reverted. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this account, for several reasons, as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 26 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.

Canvassing with implied racism accusation

After a sock is blocked and their keep vote was striked on this AfD, Rublamb messaged editors who voted keep in previous AfD but only messaging and calling to vote those who voted the same as theirs and not notifying previous AfD nominator Star Mississippi looks like a canvassing (WP:VOTESTACKING) to me. Messages: [206] [207]

But what bothered me most is what they said in one of their canvassing messages. On this message they say the same person had gone after around five Iranian articles according to another editor about me. I take issue with this and find it very inappropriate, Rublamb refers to blocked sock's nonsense personal attack message calling me racist here, that BS message of the sock was an attempt to deceive and draw Rublamb into voting keep on another AfD about sock's one of the spam articles, after seeing he found an inclusionist he can draw. Rublamb says "according to another editor", not saying "according to a blocked sock" or "according to a blocked sock's nonsense to draw me to vote on another AfD for his article", and including that implied accusation in that message looks both like an irrelevant personal attack and a way to sneakily influence the person they messaged by questioning the AfD nomination motive (with an implied racism accusation). Of course the accusation of the sock was complete BS and nonsense, the sockpuppetry of that guy was first noticed by @Maliner here and I then checked created articles by the sock and nominated a few that I thought was not notable with reasonable explanations (I mean, most of them were even protected against creation because of persistent spamming in fawiki after all) and the socks were eventually blocked by Mz7 in this case anyway.

Of course Rublamb has nothing to do with the sockpuppetry, it looks to me like they are just trying to keep an article even if it may not be notable just because they did some copyediting on it and for the sake of being an inclusionist, but I find some parts in their conduct like canvassing, sneakily trying to influence a user by adding an accusative statement to their message problematic, I am especially disturbed by that message like I said. Tehonk (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tehonk, I received a notice on my TalkPage that this article had been renominated for deletion. I similarly notified the others who had responded to the prior challenge because it only seemed fair that all three of us received notice. I also knew that these were other editors who had looked into the sources in question which can be a time-consuming process. I am not trying to stack the discussion or tell anyone how to comment. Rather, I was hoping to get more involved, either way. I did not exclude any responders to the prior challenge and notified everyone. If you think there is someone else who might be interested, I would also like them to be involved. The more voices, the better, IMO. I think we could especially use the assistance of someone with expertise in Iranian publications, or at least, editors who are willing to conduct research on the reliability of Iranian sources. I am trying to do so, but you and I going back and forth, disagreeing on the reliability of sources is not productive. If any of my comments crossed the line, it was not intentional and I apologize. I was not calling you a racist; rather, it seemed to me like there is an issue in determining what Iranian sources are reliable or major, which is impacting notability determinations. Also, several articles with Iranian sources have been deleted recently, so I would like to consider this issue to see what can and cannot be salvaged. Maybe I am being naive, but I think an article can have merit even if written by a sockpuppet. I also have an issue with someone being temporarily banned while they are politely involved in an active challenge. But I also want to follow the rules. If it is against the rules to contact people about deletion discussion, my apologies and I stand corrected. I meant well and I believe you do too. Rublamb (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Tehonk. I'm just back from a few days offline so haven't had time to explore conduct. My sourcing concerns from this summer remain present. Star Mississippi 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm here because I was one of the editors notified about the related AfD; I had added it to my watchlist, and later saw the note about this discussion there, so I guess I am somewhat involved.

This incident report seems to be an unnecessary escalation which is veering into casting aspersions. This is following a bit of escalation within the deletion discussion itself that was later called out by the relisting admin. I'd suggest that in the future @Tehonk attempt to resolve things without such a rapid and severe escalation to ANI. Reaching out on another editor's talk page to seek common ground can work wonders.

I don't think this is a case of @Rublamb canvassing, but they will benefit in the future by reading through WP:canvassing to understand the policies around notifications of discussions, including the value of the {{please see}} template. Also, consider this an informal reminder than initiators of discussions are generally considered to be participants as well, when notifying participants in previous discussions.

—siroχo 04:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple violations, not following policies and hounding also user is removing cited information without explaination

The 2023 Asia Cup was hosted by both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is cited with reputed references and even the matches which were held in Sri Lanka can be found in the schedule. However user @Pirate of the High Seas has removed the co-host Sri Lanka here without any reason - [208] which was reverted.

And then again the user did the same here - [209]

The user has a history of using IPs to hound and was blocked from editing for a week - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas/Archive

The user also nominated an article unnecessarily for deletion (The article was first added by me, maybe that could be the reason) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance

Also the user is reverting improvement made by me to this article, the user did that for three times - [210]

Requesting administrator intervention in the user not following 3 revert rule, removing cited information without explaination, hounding and nomination notable article for deletion Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Note this incident too (which may be related to the reported issue involving the user mentioned) in which the IPs coming from the country belonging to the country from which the blocked user (at that time) is probably from hounding me during the blocked period:

Incident link(s) - [211]

Blanking of pages from IP (again from a country that the blocked user at that time is probably from) and reported user nominating the pages - Special:Contributions/59.103.214.154

[212]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP asking to nominate the article for deletion in the protection request page while an increase for protection is requested for the involved page - [213] Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I request the admins to employ WP:BOOMERANG and block OP for WP:CIR. It is a classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

1. The second sentence of the 2023 Asia Cup article already has two references (from ESPNcricinfo & Forbes) with quotes verifying Pakistan as the 'Official hosts' of the tournament but still OP is making uncited edits.

2. Thewikizoomer is the one here who is continuously hounding me and during the week I was blocked, they removed well-cited additions I made on multiple articles. The Editor Interaction Analyser will make that clear. The editor hounds me, makes unconstructive edits by removing/altering cited text I added and tried to get two articles deleted which I had created. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

3. AfD nomination that I made for an article with just 2 refs is as per guidelines and the reason for which is already provided. Unlike the OP who adds CSD tags and PRODs articles for no good reason other than to hound me.

4. They lack competence and as such should be blocked to prevent further damage to WP. They lack knowledge regarding how to WP:CREATELEAD. In this edit, they removed 5Ws from the lead, removed a cited sentence from the body and also removed a Wikilink yet still call it an 'improvement'. Specially concerning are edits like these with false edit summaries: unsourced content removed.

5. I reported the 3RR violation by the OP earlier, however no action was taken just because I got blocked for a week. I believe their actions should also have been scrutinized.

6. Firefly had already warned the OP about their behavior before.

It is time admins take appropriate action against the user. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I found 3 reliable sources in 30 seconds showing Sri Lanka is the co-host. Neither of you could add them and solve part of this dispute? Focus on the content and sources rather than each other. spryde | talk 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I did add an additional citation which confirms Sri Lanka as a co-host. The history of ones contribution speaks well on who's the one focusing on content and sources and who's the one hounding Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of "competence", the non-neutral statements that a user adds to the pages associated with a specific country frequently displays how much of "competence" they have. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. What about that addition is problematic. One would imagine that if you were focusing on improving the page, you would have taken much greater notice of the paragraph above that addition, given that it is in a much poorer state. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you're referring to the 2023 Asia Cup page, the user was removing Sri Lanka, a nation which was a co-host along with Pakistan. However references confirm that Sri Lanka is a co-host. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that edit has nothing to do with the Asia Cup. You stated that this edit is non-neutral and flippantly stated that it shows a lack of competence. I'm inviting you to further explain why you think that and why you are taking such umbrage with it. It feels as though you were browsing their contributions looking for anything to put a spin on. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to one of their non-neutral addition targeted against a specific country.

They added, "According to the Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is a flawed democracy." A neutral statement may look something like, "According to the index published by Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is categorised as a flawed democracy." or "As per the Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit, India is categorised as a flawed democracy."

Instead you can see how opinionated the statement looks. For which I spoke about the "competence" thing. and the user involved felt the my improvement edits to Mizoram Bridge collapse were incompetent.

Note: - Also the page involved here is a contentious topic - Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Funny how the involved user tagged this diff and didn't tag the next response in which the decision was reviewed blocking him for a week for policy violation.

Also another nomination for a notable article (also created by me) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Leaders Declaration Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The following edit is confimed to be a false information published by a news agency and the news agency themselves apologized for that. It doesn't make the removal of this "false edit summary". - [214]

The edit summary justifies the edit. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD nomination of the user failed here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance and they immediately made another nomination of another page created by me - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Leaders Declaration. The Editor Interaction Analyser provided by the user itself shows who's hounding whom.

This user's disruptive editing also one of the cause for the page 2023 G20 New Delhi summit to have an Extended confirmed protection and its a blatant attack that they're making here in reverse. - [215]Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thewikizoomer Actually, I think Pirate of the High Seas is correct here. Pakistan was, indeed, the official host of the tournament [216] but multiple games had to be played in Sri Lanka as the Indian team refused to travel to Pakistan ("India would play its matches outside Pakistan and the PCB would retain hosting rights.") The current wording ("The matches were played as One Day Internationals (ODIs) with Pakistan as the official host and Sri-Lanka as the co-host for select matches involving India") is fine - the wording that you inserted ("The matches were played as One Day Internationals (ODIs) with Pakistan and Sri Lanka as the official host") is technically wrong. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately we have reliable sources possibly getting things confused. I added two that flat out stated they were co-host. But that discussion belongs on the talk page. spryde | talk 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  While you may be right that India refused to play in Pakistan, however, non-Indian matches were also held in Sri Lanka because, it is not only India that has refused to play in Pakistan. Multiple references suggest that Sri Lanka is a co-host.

  So, yes, the edit related to co-host issue can be discussed in that article's talk page futher. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• the user not following 3 revert rule @Thewikizoomer can you identify where 3RR was violated? GabberFlasted (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Also, @Thewikizoomer I have to agree that you are holding PotHS to a double standard here. You've accused them of hounding you and removing cited content without explanation, and in light of that I'd ask you to explain these three edits. You've complained that they are nominating your articles for deletion but you've done precisely the same thing. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Khalistan Tiger Force was nominated by me as it wasn't a significant organization, it is just one of the many organizations that the Indian government banned for terrorist acts. Moreover, the group didn't have any activity which is of significance, considering the activities of the group internally in India and also outside India. Only until the recent killing of Harideep Singh Nijjar, the outfit got popular which happened way long after I nominated it for deletion for not holding significance.

  Regarding Jai Shri Ram, the statement which was removed, was removed because it appears like an opinion, the specific statement didn't had any citations, made a direct attack on a religious slogan for being used in communal violence. The Wikipedia policy asks editors to stick to a neutral point of view and not assume something based on an article.

  Regarding Mizoram Bridge collapse removal from the Disasters in India template, the edit was made as a part of cleanup process and not disruptive on the assumption that the user involved here made the edits as part of their behaviour in which they proceed frequently to add information negatively about a specific nation. For example, their additions which is are totally unrelated to 2023 G20 New Delhi summit appeared and were later removed for being totally unrelated and biased not sticking to the neutral view. Hence this was a part of cleanup process which was done because the assumption was the user made them with malicious intention towards a specific nation. Infact, I improved this page from its poor formatting after finding out its significance. Now the article is reverted to its old state by the involved user. One can see my improvements. There are tons of errors in the page, I fixed but were reverted. Indian railways in not called some "federal" thing like they call in other nations.

  Regarding the edit in Freedom of religion in India, they simply stated the information twice, an editor inserted a whole paragraph which repeats the context in the paragraph just above that which didn't appear constructive and disrupted the easy reading format which Wikipedia wants its editors to adhere to without disturbing the context and entering repetitive statements. Also it can be observed that it is simply the travel advisory information which usually any country updates from time to time about the country their citizens intend to visit. Unless there is no change in advisory what is the need to add repetitive information. It's like the page will increase more and more with monthly advisories. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  1) Saying the content removed from Jai Shri Ram did not have any citations is quite peculiar when it seems to me that it had 15 citations. It also seems to me that the first form of that sentence was added back in 2020 by a user who is very much not banned, despite your edit summary.

  2) So you acknowledge that you removed the content from Template:Disasters in India in 2023 simply because it was an edit made by Pirate of the High Seas, without even looking at it to weigh the value of the content? You can call it a "cleanup process" or decide for yourself that your own edit was "not disruptive" but that is quite concerning.

  3) I agree that the wording in question in Freedom of religion in India was a bit clunky and repetitive but a total removal of the content isn't necessary either. I am more concerned with the edit summary PROPAGANDA NOT ALLOWED. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  1) It had citations related to the incidents relating to the communal violence and not related to "The slogan has since been employed in connection with the perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths". Since?

  2) No, I do not, because, I saw the content carefully and if you look at the first edit, the wording completely is different. it was a removal made to a topic which was termed as contentious, the removal took place because of it having connection and matching behavioural patterns of that user who at that period resorted to edit warring to the page 2023 G20 New Delhi summit in trying to include unrelated and false claims which appeared to be non-neutral. Later when an admin said that it holds significance, I have gone through guidelines again and understood the guidelines, hence made improvements to the said article.

  3) Should we let the non-neutral statement stay there? also note its repetitive. "Propaganda" in edit summary because of the wording of the entered information and the user's behavioural pattern in targeting a specific country and trying to add false/non-significant information like they did in the 2023 G20 New Delhi summit article which is non-neutral again. The edit summary justifies that removal.

  My whole edit history can be referred from beginning to end to observe my efforts in trying to protect policies and improve Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Now that Thewikizoomer has demonstrated failure to WP:AGF and shown WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior along with casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I'm awaiting admin action against them. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sure admins don't need to be reminded to do their part - [217]

I have presented my replies to the questions asked related to this case and contrary to the reported person's views like they mentioned here, they were justified and the replies can be seen in this thread.

I guess administrators still haven't asked the user regarding their violations. In the 1st point of their reply they haven't answered on why they have removed Sri Lanka as a co-host repeatedly when multiple reliable citations confirm the same.

Instead they proceeded to make personal attack like they always to targeting my username which they were told not to do so (not to make personal attacks on fellow editors) before here - [218]

In their 6th point they tried to conceal the information in which the action was taken on them. Trying to mislead? - [219]

Their blatant attack by reverting improvements on Mizoram Bridge collapse are still live and the page still contains a lot of miswordings and non-neutral content. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Earlier, an administrator had a look at the reported user activity during a sock report against them was undergoing at investigation and confirmed their involvement in using IPs to hound - [220]Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparent long term hoax; Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory; User:Raphael.concorde

• Raphael.concorde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent hoax fictional "Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory" has been placed into articles. User:Raphael.concorde has been one of the promoters of the prank. See Talk:Michoud Assembly Facility#"Chris Hadfield Rocket Factory" does not exist; also, I started discussion on Commons at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems#User:Raphael.concorde and Chris_A. Hadfield Rocket_Factory, which has more info and some links re this apparent hoax. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed reference to this at the Chris Hadfield article. There should be zero tolerance for long-term hoaxing like this, and they should be indeffed unless they can make some convincing argument that they were duped. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That's going to be tough, considering the source page was a satirical Flickr account with clearly shopped images. Also, given Raphael's impressive CV, one wonders if their account is a hoax as well. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of logged-out editing (Special:Contributions/147.197.250.54, historically 2.29.222.121/24), although that isn't strictly against policy. Both of those are British IPs, although I guess their userpage doesn't say where they live, just that they're French-American by birth. My feeling here is we should wait for an answer, unless someone can find a smoking gun that shows they knew the thing was fake or that they clearly violated WP:SOCK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh and also Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4872:8600:8DE2:2E64:110C:FFFA/64, which added the line to Michoud Assembly Facility to begin with, and is in the right city with overlaps on other articles... And oh look, here we have the IP pretending to not be Raphael. That's a few years old, but it's enough to break any assumption of good faith. Indeffing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin I'm guessing this recent edit on one of Raphael's uploads, also from a 147.197.250.XX IP belonging to the University of Hertfordshire, is from Raphael. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup. That's the range used by his supposed English friend. I don't think there's enough disruption on the range to block, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 14:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeated accusations, attacks and incivility

Several editors, especially HandThatFeeds and DanielRigal, have recently undertaken a campaign of accusing and attacking me at several pages, which is making it hard for me to discuss article content. This discussion comes off the back of an ANI report made against me.

• [221] DanielRigal accuses me of trolling and maybe even harassment.
• [222] DanielRigal accuses me of sealioning, bludgeoning, ownership of content, and WP:IDHT. He also says that I don't think this is going to stop until Willbb234 either gets what he wants or somebody puts a stop to it.
• [223] HandThatFeeds tells me that It's pretty fucking obvious you either don't understand or (more likely) don't care about basic principles. and that You've made up your mind that you are right, and no one is going to persuade you otherwise. to which Sweet6970 says It’s not a good idea to get so aggressive and insulting – how about striking your comment?, which they do not do.
• [224] DanielRigal accuses me of WP:SATISFY and ownership of content
• [225] DanielRigal accuses me of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE.

At Talk:Antifa (United States), HandThatFeeds has told me that

• Denying reality is a you problem. and accused me of sealioning.
• and that the Last person to take me to ANI got themselves blocked. Feel free. (seems like some kind of threat/scare tactic)
• DanielRigal has also told me that I have to find consensus to remove unsourced content from an article, to which he was told by Valereee that the onus is on the person who wants to include the information, even if it's currently included, and the fact that info is sourced at a linked article isn't enough. If someone objects to unsourced content, go bring in the source.

The dispute at Transgender actually ended up being productive, with changes made to the article. This was despite DanielRigal trying to convince me that anything other than total acquiescence to your demands will placate you. I think that consensus is against you here and that this is in danger of becoming a WP:1AM situation. At Talk:Antifa (United States), I thought the discussion was going well until HandThatFeeds decides to join in and promptly starts with the accusations. It's becoming very difficult for me to discuss content on a talk page when I have to navigate through a plethora of bad-faith accusations and repeated attacks against my conduct. It also seems like editors are singling me out, for example, when there was some significant removal of content on Transgender, these same editors were totally silent. For the record, I don't believe that I have acted without civility in these discussions, but I have certainly been met with incivility. Unlike other editors, I am not necessarily advocating for a block, but I would welcome an IBAN, so that I can go about my business without these attacks. Willbb234 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The above is basically more of Willbb234's attempts to force an edit against consensus, then becoming indignant when their behavior is pointed out as disruptive. Note that these cherry-picked examples are from other disputes, but the current nexus is at Talk:Antifa (United States), where it was made clear that Willbb does not have consensus for the changes they want. (Note: the unsourced content claim is spurious; the content is sourced, but Willbb disputes that it's sufficient, despite three other editors believing the sourcing is adequate.)

In other words, Will is attempting to frame a content dispute as a behavioral problem by... well, everyone they disagree with. Instead, this is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Willbb has been consistently refusing to listen when others have explained their misunderstandings, sealioning to insist other editors meet their idiosyncratic understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and generally being disruptive.

Willbb wants everyone else to simply do what they want, and when that doesn't work begins misquoting rules & dragging discussions out in an attempt to wear down the opposition. And frankly, I'm tired of it. Willbb needs, at minimum, an admonishment from admins to stop making demands of others while misusing Wikipedia's policies as a bludgeon to get their way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234 finally saw sense and dropped the stick, like I had been suggesting all along, at Transgender and then things were able to move on more productively. I am astonished to see him picking it back up, along with another stick (the Antifa (United States) one). This seems like retaliation for [[226]], at least to some extent. The Antifa business looks like another almost 1AM situation to me, with different people involved. If this doesn't show an general problem collaborating with others then I don't know what does. I think a boomerang is in order. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I just want to make it very clear that I have no "campaign" against Willbb234 and that I see no sign that any of the other people who have a problem with Willbb234's conduct are engaged in a "campaign" either, whether individually or collectively. I think that Willbb234 is misunderstanding the situation. His behaviour elicits similar responses from various editors but that does not indicate any sort of coordinated "campaign" against him. DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll chime in here: when I entered the discussion on Talk:Antifa, I didn't even realize I'd interacted with Willbb before. It wasn't until this ANI post that I realized we'd had that previous dispute here on ANI itself. Any claim that this is a campaign is unwarranted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

DanielRigal - I haven't claimed that this campaign is coordinated. However, what I have seen is that you have refused to discuss content, instead, your entire focus has been on harassing and attacking me. Even here, where I have provided evidence of your behaviour, you have tried to switch the discussion towards my behaviour and you are still trying to get me blocked. It's never about the content, it's never about your actions, it's never about anyone else's actions, it's always about me and it's always about my behaviour. It's relentless and it constitutes a campaign. Willbb234 18:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am seriously biting my tongue here, because this accusation applies equally to yourself: you never consider that your opinions may be wrong, it's always everyone else who is to blame. Is it more likely that everyone who is disagreeing with you is on a campaign to get you blocked, or is it that your behavior has put off so many people that you are digging your own hole? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment My interpretation of what went on at Transgender is that the editors who joined the discussion after it was raised at ANI agreed with Willbb234. I certainly did. And I regard the comment by HandThatFeeds, as quoted above, to be so uncivil that it should be completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• My reading of the related threads which were linked by the OP is that most uninvolved participants agreed that Willbb234 is, at best, misapplying WP:ONUS, and at worst WP:WIKILAWYERing to get content they disagree with removed from articles. My own take here is that Willbb234 should learn to drop the stick when consensus is clearly against them in a discussion; HandThatFeeds and DanielRigal should bring this matter to AE if they believe the OP's editing pattern to be disruptive enough, instead of prolonging behavior-focused discussions at the talk page of articles. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'll keep AE in mind if this continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• My take: Willbb234 originally correctly interpreted ONUS as it was written, but is going about applying it in a way that almost invites conflict, and has dug themselves into a hole from which misinterpreting ONUS is the only way out. Much could be solved if they stopped antagonizing people. Reminder: conduct policies are as much a foundation of Wikipedia as content ones. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Careerpak1 - Repeated advertising

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

---

The user Careerpak1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding spam links, creating advertised focused pages, is violating the username policy, and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Please have this user dealt with. Thanks :). -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 06:33, 26 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.

Saqlain Miyan

Hi Wiki Admin, Qe would like to delete a page which was created by a nuisance person and also used content is misleading. Toufeeq690 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is "We" that you keep referring to? Also if you feel the page should be deleted, WP:AFD is that way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Toufeeq690 You have failed to notify Liu1126 (talk · contribs) of this discussion, even though the red notice on top of this page clearly requires you to do so. I have done so for you this time. If you're editing on behalf of a business, please note that Wikipedia does not permit accounts to be used by any more than one person. Also, be careful with your thread subject title; implying that Liu1126 is a nuisance person could be construed as a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your response. I am referring WE for the responsible person or authority of the page tittle created by someone else. Please refer our website I am head of IT unit and would like to delete this page and we will create a new page ourself, www.saqalainfoundation.org Toufeeq690 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No further checks necessary. I blocked "we" via WP:UPE, but WP:CIR would have been an option also. Now, if someone could clean that article up... Drmies (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t added any information that is not available in the sources itself, almost every source are in Hindi language that gives information about the subject, the user themself belongs to a Organisation which is headquartered at the Shrine of Sharafat Ali Miyan grandfather of the subject Saqlain Miyan, it is a COI for sure. I saw that the user is now blocked, he asked my personal contact on my talkpage i denied and asked them to you Mail the user feature to contact me. Thanks — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, Asdaq700 just appeared in case this needs addressing. Star Mississippi 15:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm on it--and accidentally ran CU on myself. Obviously I can't reveal my own socks. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi, interesting: it seemed so obvious, but CU actually pretty much excludes it--we might just have a vandal here and an accidentally similar user name. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I ask my senior users to have a check on Msaqlaini also, they have their name similar to the subject and they had edited on the article earlier. By the way, i think that the page should be protected now because of these vandalism happening there, rest is upon the senior users. Thanks — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sock potato! Thanks for the eyes, and the laugh @Drmies Star Mississippi 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi What do you mean by laugh senior? — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Ownership" being asserted over Hanlon's razor

I'm having an edit dispute with User:Altenmann over Hanlon's razor. This started with me trying to make a small edit, which he reverted. I opened a talk page discussion that quickly degenerated into angry rebuttals and personal attacks.

The obvious next step was to start an RFC, to bring more editors into the discussion, which I did. This seems to have increased Altenmann's anger level: his response began with Oppose and Speedily Close. Putting that on an RFC amounts to STFU.

Now he's gone ahead with extensive edits that center around the very issue we're discussing. My request that he hold off while the discussion is open was tersely rejected.

In summary, he's been uncivil and unresponsive, and is effectively claiming ownership of the page. What started out as a simple disagreement about the best way to present a simple fact has become a major blowout. I think the dude needs a timeout. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor assessment There is no conduct here that warrants admin involvement. Both Isaac Rabinovitch and Altenmann have displayed roughly the same level of incivility. That incivility is about as strong as the incivility I am displaying in this current post, that is, editor conduct is directly brought into question, by both users.

To be quite honest, OP is feeling a disproportionate amount of attack for what is present there. I would recommend to take a breather, and then come back to the discussion. Disagreements are difficult for everyone, but not everything stated as part of a disagreement is a personal attack.

The comment listed on the RFC were made as a response to the accusations of personal attacks, which were brought on by a comment by Altenmann that could be described as "flippant" in tone. I guess Altenmann could have played that better, but I don't see it as being out of line enough to be actionable. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious to know how you distinguish "flippancy" from "personal attacks". But I don't suppose that's important.

I'm perfectly willing to "take a breather" if it means we both back away from the discussion. But as things stand, it means that I sit down and shut up while Altenman is allowed to ignore an active discussion and drastically revise the page as he chooses. I feel like I'm being bullied into silence. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch: I agree that User:Altenmann voting to "speedily close" your RfC was inappropriate but that's only because they've been around long enough to know that no uninvolved person was going to review that matter and actually speedily close the request. But your reaction to it is similarly problematic: you've been around long enough to know that no administrator is going to agree that them using those two words is any sort of violation of the civility policy, let alone one worthy of a sanction. For that matter, it's arguable that claiming their use of those two words is equivalent, to any degree, to them telling you to "shut the fuck up" is you violating the civility policy. From my point of view as an uninvolved passerby, you were way out of line. City of Silver 01:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann's incivility is not my primary concern. I only mention it as an indication that he's not interesting in having a proper discussion. He tried to use rudeness to end the discussion; when that didn't work, he just started ignoring the discussion and went ahead editing the article to suit himself.

If you guys think I filed this because my feelings are hurt, you're really missing the point. I don't need people to be nice to me, I need them to give an honest listen to what I have to say. I only care about the rudeness because it's a reliable indicator that the rude person just isn't listening. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You assert he used rudeness, but maybe it isn't malice at play here. Cyclone of Corrections (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I canceled the RfC. A quick look at Hanlon's razor and Talk:Hanlon's razor suggests that the disagreement is minor and very recent. Please discuss the matter with reliable sources. I don't see any civil or ownership problems. Patience is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It was my perception that the discussion wasn't going anywhere and that bringing in more voices was the only way to move it forward. If an RFC was the wrong way to do this, I apologize. But I'm on the RFC notification list myself, and the kinds of issues Yapperbot asks me to comment on are pretty much this level. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Isaac Rabinovitch and Altenmann, I think that you are each roughly equally responsible for this ridiculous tempest in a teapot, which is about a triviality. Look in the mirror, both of you. If the bickering continues, you may both end up pageblocked from both the article and its talk page, and at risk of additional sanctions. So please tread carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen: @Acebulf: I am absolutely baffled with how this AN/I is proceeding. May be this is my bad command of English, but please explain what exactly I did wrong to enflame the opposite party. Surely I don't want this happening to me again. - Altenmann >talk 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver: I disagree that "speedily close" !vote is inappropriate. The "speedily" requests are happening in AfDs and RFCs all the time. Heck, this RFC was actually speedily closed. To judge such request as rudeness is ridiculous. - Altenmann >talk 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann: I disagree that "speedily close" !vote is inappropriate. I explained, in clear, great detail, that your use of those two words, even though you did so in good faith, was a mistake because they guaranteed you'd never have a worthy discussion with Isaac. (And damn right I've said that Isaac did the same, where they lodged incredibly dumb complaints against you that guaranteed they'd never have a worthy discussion with you.) So I'm shocked, shocked, that you don't agree with me that you could have done better! Nobody ever believes they're wrong.

The "speedily" requests are happening in AfDs and RFCs all the time. I know! I never said anything different. Speedily closed RfCs all have plenty in common that they don't have in common with this RfC. You're free to claim to not know the difference and I'm free to not believe you.

Heck, this RFC was actually speedily closed. I'm looking at how that discussion was refactored then left open by Johnuniq and I can't find anything even remotely resembling a speedy close. John deliberately didn't use either of those words because his action was not a speedy close by any honest measure. But you're compelled, absolutely required, to interpret it differently because nobody ever believes they're wrong.

To judge such request as rudeness is ridiculous. I didn't point out that you were rude because I wanted you to agree with me. You could have fired off the rudest attack in the history of this site and you'd still be here telling me how ridiculous I am for saying so because nobody ever believes they're wrong. City of Silver 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• A request for comment uses up a lot of editor attention, which is to say, volunteer time. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you follow me. So before going to RfC, it's important to exhaust all the alternatives. I'm pleased with Johnuniq's decision to summarily close and delist this one.—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we get some help at User talk:Kvng

[227]. Harassment by scammer. No response at AIV. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

They've been indefinitely blocked. City of Silver 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them and revdel'd the content, since it was a verbatim copy of another website with an "All rights reserved" notice at the bottom. - Aoidh (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. All very odd, and it appears someone had targeted that talk page before. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For context as to why that talk page specifically, Kvng's talk page was the location of those comments because of Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list (See the "How will I know if a question comes from one of my mentees?" section). - Aoidh (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Even on Wiki, "No good deed," etc. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

EC permissions gaming

דוב appears to have gamed the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed. Registered in 2014, they had 15 edits prior to returning to activity a few days after the Hamas attack in Israel. And no fault there, there is obviously going to be a surge in editor interest in an affected region that has English speakers, but since learning of the 500 edit requirement for participation, the editor began vandal fighting, getting to 500 edits in 3 days. Among the vandals they have fought has been themselves, with them removing material only to restore it seconds later, removing and restoring, removing and restoring, and again and again, and again and again. Since reaching 500 edits the vandal fighting, and the incredible pace of edits, has stopped, with all of their edits being in CT areas. nableezy - 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit too obvious. Extended confirmed revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

None of my edits are "Game", all of my edits are reverts and fighting sorts of vandalism, over 400 of vandalism reverts that have been made. I did revert 3 edits back after rechecking them and seeing that they weren't vandlism. My account is over 9 years old and I have also edits during the years.

Furthermore, the complaint nableezy made here is nothing more than trying "to get revenge" for leaving a message regarding to him attacking me personally in talk pages.

Using blockage without checking anything is highly dubious. Where did WP:AFG go? As an adminstrartor you'll just block anybody without doing even a bit of pre-checking? dov (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it isnt revenge, though that was technically a 1RR violation on your part as well. The idea that you reverted an edit, checked it to see if it wasnt vandalism after reverting it, and then self-reverting all in the same minute is interesting I guess. nableezy - 17:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I reverted it twice, the violation 3 times. But still, this is a personal assault, trying to block me on "technicalities" none of my edits are game. This seems highly personal, simply because you didn't want to be confronted about your higly agressive language and lack of WP:RESPECT towards other users. Zero fact checking and just assuming bad causes, forgetting the basics of the Wikipedia community. dov (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There are definitely gaming edits in your contribution history. You are making it extremely difficult to assume good faith with your disingenuous protests. Tiderolls 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well it is really frustrating to be blocked for no reason. Cherrypicking 5 edits of mistakes I made after reclrifying vandalism are not gaming edits even when you try to show them as pattern which doesn't exist, they're proof that I'm not a machine. I didn't spam any edits, when you're monitoring vandalism you never make any mistakes? Of course 1 out 50-60 will be mistakes, I am human not a bot. Most of my edits are not related to any CT subjects. dov (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You aren't blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Taken away permissions, muted, semi-blocked. Anything that "punishes" me, for again doing nothing wrong. I ask you again, use common sense and WP:FAITH. I didn't abuse any rule did I? The whole point of "game" is to abuse Wikipedia's rules against it. I never did anything like that. I contributed to the Wikimedia project for over 10 years, through all of it's platforms. If you see I abuse my permissions somehow, take them away, but I didn't do anything yet did I? dov (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You didn't lose permissions for No! Reason! -- we don't accept that answer from a six year old, and needn't from grownups either. You obviously don't like the reasons, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. You would be much better off learning from your errors and returning a productive editor, rather than making futile protests. Ravenswing 11:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1 in 1RR means 1. nableezy - 17:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked דוב for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Factors include gaming the system, vandalism, denying the obvious and insulting other editor's intelligence. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothappycamping NOTHERE

Gender-related subjects are touchy for various people and subject to a lot of disputation (and covered by WP:CTOP). Nothappycamping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been injecting angry screeds about the subject, which could be cause for concern by itself. But what really got me scatching my head were this editor's WP:NOTHERE declarations that:

• "It feels for some that the only way to make a point at the ridiculous stance taken by wiki is to vent on on the talk pages." [228] – Nothappycamping is clearly included in the rhetorical "some", and posted this in response to a WP:NOT#FORUM notice that wasn't even directed at them. It shows a WP:SOAPBOX belief that Wikipedia is for taking a "stance" rather than reflecting what the reliable sources are telling us (posted in response to a reminder that sourcing not invective is how Wikipedia operates).
• "Wikipedia is clearly run and defended by a certain group of people. I assume its because that sort of person has a hard time trying to leave the house so they waste their time putting ridiculous articles together on wiki." [229] – Appears to be directly opposed to Wikipedia and its editorial community and processes.
• "A completely unbalanced website run by idealogues that want to push their beliefs on everyone else and are clearly not interested in the truth." [230] – More opposition to Wikipedia itself, and clear declaration of WP:GREATWRONGS intent.
• "It took me months to clear out the lies on the 'x gender' wiki. Do you really think we have the time to do the same on more contentious pages with a lot more defenders with a lot more time?" [231] – Appears to be a statement of a combined WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GREATWRONGS modus operandi, as well as an indication that they are on a "mission" to go from page to page in pursuit of a particular agenda. ("'x gender' wiki" does not mean some other site, but is a kind of confused reference to our article X-gender, where Nothappycamping did some stuff that mostly seems to have been reverted, and which has a lot to do with the pile of warnings on their user-talk page.)
• "it's the same nonsense. A very small unemployable minority forcing this crap on a very suspicious public." [232] – More direct opposition to Wikipedia and its editorship, posted after repeated reminders that they were going off-topic and that Talk:Latinx is not for venting about other subjects and that WP is not a forum.

Nothappycamping focuses almost entirely on a few trans- and gender-related pages, and a quick skim of their other input there doesn't look much more promising:

• "It's quite obvious what kind of people are running the show these days." [233] – More supposition that WP is some ideologue farm to be against.
• "Where is the article on wiki that actually isnt afraid to be critical?" [234] – Contextually meaning gender-critical; more of this idea that WP is about advancing an agenda.
• There's also lots of bogus argument that the term anti-gender movement somehow cannot be valid because it is not the term favored by the groups that sources put under this label. [235][236] (It's the same argument that WP can't have an article on TERF, or neo-Nazism, or terrorism, because TERFs and neo-Nazis, and terrorists generally don't call themselves that.)

This editor's primary bone to pick seems to be that there are no articles here called "Problems with treating trans women as actual women" [237], "Flaws of the trans movement" [238], and "Opposition to transgender laws" [239] (a phrase that could have multiple interpretations). And they're quite upset that the article Trans genocide exists [240][241][242].

In fairness, not every single edit or comment by Nothappycamping is in this vein; there are a few legit requests for better sourcing, and reasonable questioning of some source interpretations. And they also edited 3 football/soccer pages and one TV show page. But the bulk of their input seems to be "taking a stance" and "advancing a position" on gender-related talk pages, and this clearly is not encyclopedia-constructive. Various warnings at User talk:Nothappycamping point to some topically related issues at someone else's user page, which I didn't look into.

I tried to give wide benefit of the doubt in my interactions with this perseon, but the above commentary taken together makes it hard to conclude anything other than that Nothappycamping is a perpetually angry agent provocateur and culture-warrior with no respect at all for the project or those who work on it, who is here simply to advance a gender-critical WP:ACTIVISM / WP:ADVOCACY agenda for as long as they last.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Stanton, your posts have been getting quite verbose of late, I must say. EEng 22:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish I want to point out their previous behavior on X-gender where they were very resistant to questioning on their knowledge of the topic and also sockpuppeted. Previously we applied Wikipedia:Assume good faith to the sockpuppeting though. They never even clarified whether they were educated in Japan. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like the classic pitfall of "The article is biased toward another POV [according to me], so the solution is to insist it be biased toward my POV". Lots of people run into it, in lots of topic areas, and gender is one of the ones where it's more pernicious, because common discourse on gender (across the ideological spectrum) often has little in common with what reliable sources have to say. It's funny, Trans women are women and trans men are men is probably a notable topic, and could include, with due weight, criticism of that concept (both from pro- and anti-trans perspectives). "Are women adult human females?"^PDF is a good illustration both of how most philosophers say trans women are women, but some do not. But it doesn't sound like that's the article NHC wants to write. They want to write a polemic (or multiple polemics), because that's what they perceive existing articles on the topic to be. And even if they were right, that would still be a problem, but I don't think they're right. For instance, our article Transgender genocide does not actually say that a transgender genocide is occurring. They should probably be separated from this topic area and left to improve the encyclopedia in other ways. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This yells NOTHERE at me but I suppose that an indef would simply prove to Nothappycamping that Wikipedia is, indeed, run by unemployable minorities who fail to share their worldview. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I've never worried too much about confirming that kind of assumption. Otherwise we wind up saying that if someone is disruptive, we'll go easier on them if they're even more disruptive still. In any event, I was just about to write that I could see a TBAN working over a block here, but as I was writing that they've said they quit. Given the outstanding NOTHERE issues, someone should probably enforce that resignation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They've been shown the door. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it was a good block. I'm airily indifferent towards whatever level of grievance an indeffed person may or may not harbor ... and after all, if as few as four indeffed editors in five wish malediction and ruin upon us all, I'd be surprised. It's enough that they're not actively carrying out their wishes. Ravenswing 11:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a happy camper then. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Dave Plummer

As I reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Plummer there has been a long-term campaign by an IP-hopping user in Australia to accuse Dave Plummer of a crime based upon a settlement with no actual trial or conviction.

The situation has now escalated to threats. See [243]

IPs involved:

• 14.203.50.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14.200.128.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.211.69.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.45.90.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.30.107.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.240.205.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And a personal attack here [244] Meters (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a year. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP currently in use also needs a short block for continued personal attacks and WP:BLP violations: [245][246][247][248][249][250] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

IP currently blocked. Looks like we are done here. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For the time being, at least. Let me know, Guy Macon Alternate Account, if the disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor persists with adding references to edit summaries rather than as in-line citations

I recently reverted some unsourced claims that I am RedoStone added to some box-office charts. I won't list them all, but you can see an example here and here. I asked the editor to respect the WP:V policy on their talk page. The editor has resumed editing these articles, again this time adding the sources to the edit summaries (examples at [251], [252] & [253]). I have asked the editor to add the references as in-line citations, but they have ignored my request and continued as before. This is not a new user; I am RedoStone has been registered for 4 years and an editor of that vintage should be acquainted with the basic requirement of adding a source to Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked I am RedoStone for two weeks. They have tried this ridiculous edit summary stunt ten times recently. It comes to an end right now. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IP 2A02:14F:1:ADD5:0:0:0:1 using offensive language

Hey, an IP has been using offensive language in its edit summary as well as personally attacking me. I'm not familiar in the process of how to report an IP.

If it's possible to deal with the IP that would be appreciated. I don't think it fits Wikipedia to have this IP call users: retard, autistic, commit suicide...

Links to offensive language use: [254] , User talk:Homerethegreat#cry about it

@2A02:14F:1:ADD5:0:0:0:1

Thank you for the help

Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and revdelled. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sturgehel at the Zehra Sayers 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.

---

Sturgehel (talk · contribs) is edit warring to add disputed material to Zehra Sayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), that has been objected to on WP:BLP grounds at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Zehra Sayers. Despite being told per WP:BLPRESTORE the material cannot be added without consensus, they have restored the material here for a third time today. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your objection, which I am taking into account. I have not re-added the material but made changes to it which I hope will bring it in line with the general editorial opinion. Sturgehel (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The changes you made in your latest addition make the material added even more objectionable. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted per BLP, as the sourcing is not suitable for the claims being made. This is per point one of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. I think Sturgehel would do wise to not re-add the content to the article again without consensus on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A bigger question probably needs to be asked of what this editor's motivation here is, given this removal of information, some of which was adequately sourced and all was positive. To then, months later, drop this negative bombshell in the article - is there a conflict of interest at play? Daniel (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Given comments including "Finally, I have been informed by Sayers’ relatives" here it would appear they have a closer connection than the average editor. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to the version prior to this user starting to meddle with it, because I couldn't find sources that backed up any of their changes. Daniel (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm now even more convinced of an undeclared COI given this edit to an unrelated article - note the last names. Daniel (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to bring this to WP:3RRN myself, as both a slow-burning edit warrior, a violation of WP:1RR; with a side of WP:NOTHERE. All of the edits of Sturgehel appear to be concerning the questionally-notable Paris Institute for Critical Thinking and relatives of Zehra Sayers. I am concerned that they appear to be a single-purpose account for promoting the institute and these relatives. The sourcing is also wholly inadequate (per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NPF) for the alleged crime at Zehra Sayers. Pinging also @Caeciliusinhorto: who was the first to remove the contested material. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree and support an indefinite block for undeclared COI and POV pushing as a single purpose account, as well as the NOTHERE elements. Daniel (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add to this: I reverted on BLP grounds, Sturgehel should have discussed on the talkpage rather than editwarring, and the look like a clear case of WP:RGW/WP:NOTHERE to me. Glad to see Bbb23 and Cullen on the case. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is completely sidestepping the established fact that there is a fraud investigation going on against Zehra Sayers, an investigation that has been confirmed by the investigators themselves and that is not being denied by Sayers. The motivations of this editor, no matter what they may be, are completely irrelevant to this fact which should be the only thing of interest here.

It would appear that the editor “Materials enthusiast” is either Sayers herself or someone close to Sayers and is trying to prevent this factual information from surfacing on Sayers’ Wikipedia page. However, the charges are public knowledge by now (they appear immediately beneath Sayers’ Wikipedia page in any Google search), so Sayers would be best advised to issue a public response instead of trying to whitewash her page here.

As clearly articulated in the statement by the Paris Institute for Critical Thinking, Sayers’ relatives expressed themselves on the matter in order to distance themselves from Sayers and the allegations leveled at her, allegations that threatened to harm their own reputation as public figures of wider recognition than Sayers herself. To reiterate, they have assured this editor that they will publicize the results of the investigation as soon as they are in, so we can look forward to that. Sturgehel (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment @Sturgehel, almost every one of your edits relates to the Paris Institute for Critical Thinking. Do you have any kind of conflict of interest? BrigadierG (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have established who User:Sturgehel is, to a standard of proof I am satisfied with. I won't share the name here because it sits on the borderline of outing, but anything related to the Paris Institute is a direct conflict of interest, as is Zehra Sayers with regards to the latest issue. I have begun to remove some of the PICT information that is not directly relevant from various articles that this editor added it to. Daniel (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 has indefinitely blocked Sturgehel. Since disruptive editing has been going on at Zehra Sayers for at least six months, I have semi-protected that BLP for one year. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much Cullen. Note for future reference - for related accounts, Cezannesdoubt (see Commons; declared a COI on enwp) and Ozgurnura (see deleted contributions; did not declare a COI but used the previous account's images on now-deleted drafts). Daniel (talk) 17:36, 27 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.

Edit warring, stalking, and targeted harassment by User:Kimen8 at user talk page, Benzodiazepine, and Talk:Benzodiazepine

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 believe this matter needs administrator intervention. User:Kimen8 has been engaged in an uncivil edit war with User:BeingObjective, an expert medical professional with decades of experience, over a simple attempt to remove slangy terms from the article. The problem has been worsened by Kimen8’s ongoing campaign of targeted harassment and bullying at the article talk page and BeingObjective’s talk page, culminating in an undeserved 48 hour block. I strongly recommend sanctioning Kimen8 and unblocking BeingObjective. Evitcejbo (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:21, 28 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.

IP user talk page abuse

The IP address 96.5.241.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done nothing but make unconstructive edits to their own talk page since being blocked. The range blocks are not preventing the anonymous user from editing their own talk page. One of their edits includes TPV with this edit. Eyesnore ^talk💬 18:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a shared IP, so an innocent bystander might need to request an unblock. I'd just ignore them and let them rant. They'll stop ctying and self-comfort eventually. If we respond, it gives them attention they crave.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)

102.46.14.239 IP vandalism farm

This IP has been generating a sock range that has extended to at least 10+ IP's, all generating the same racist and hateful edit summaries and edits, each one getting more and more racist and mostly focused on targeting pages related to human intelligence and mental health. One example can be seen here. Is there any way else to completely block this IP from editing the site entirely other than to keep reporting and blocking each individual IP at AIV?

Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Filmssssssssssss: IP-hopping vandal admits to using IPSharkk to evade blocks; see Special:AbuseLog/36242496 for more info. Eyesnore ^talk💬 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

P2P VPNs are tricky by nature. I recommend following the WP:RBI process until they get bored. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism at Dale Earnhardt

Thermicknight7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dale Earnhardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could we get a closer look at this user? What seemed to be a normal contribution history for their 11-month tenure has, since October 20, turned into nothing but vandalism at and about Dale Earnhardt. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, look, I apologize, I know that was very uncalled for and I will make it my mission to not do that. Thermicknight7 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems an adequate apology for someone who may turn out to be a very good editor. Why vandalize a page all of a sudden? Who knows, Madness. But if given a one-time chance maybe this Wikipedian will turn it around and live up to their name, 7. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I should note that the user self-reverted at Walter White (Breaking Bad) before posting here.[255] Hopefully that's the end of it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pirate of the High Seas

@Pirate of the High Seas: is engaged in persistent revert of WP:NPOV on the article despite previous user warnings (including removal of warning from talkpage), and despite asking to discuss first. User is also ignoring the already-building consensus on the same subject(under move request heading).

Article: Indian espionage case in Qatar

Talk Page warning: Talk:Indian_espionage_case_in_Qatar#Persistent POV edits by some editors

Edits concerned:

• user adds POV material which was previously NPOVed by another user.

• User adds POV again here mentioning "unexplained" removal which was explained and removed

See also: removal of warnings from self talk page

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Pirate of the High Seas He is constantly reverting my edit and other editors edit to back to where his edits were saying to discuss it on talk page of article Indian espionage case in Qatar. Please guide where the responsibility lies and who is acting irresponbily here. On 28 I did an edit explaning in good words what I did (pre) . I did in good faith and User4edits also came looked and supported it later. I explained reasons in my summary but still Pirate has no option, not coming on my talk page, not opening new section in artcle's talk page but outright saying i pushed a POV and reverting it back to where it was. Please look at my edit, I mean does that look like POV push. I tried making article consistent with my dicussion on BLP noticeboard with another editor.

Pirate of high seas's earlier records are also not that good, but why I have to suffer this back and forth. Please some eperienced editor settle this. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 11:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• WP:ANI is not for content disputes. Since there appears to have been very little discussion of this particular content dispute, I have protected the page for two weeks in order that discussion can take place. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The comment laid herein refer more with the user behavior. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also I don't understand how protecting a POV version of the page is going to help. User4edits (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  You see, administrators are required to protect the wrong version of articles. Getting the right version can result in desysopping. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok... I have pointed out in talk page what the right version should be.

  But here me and User4dits did not only come for article, but also for the behavior of Pirate of High seas. I am simply requesting that action be taken against the same editor. Isn't assuming good faith a basic principle of wiki while editing? He called me POV pusher in edit summary. See below DSP2092's concern. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 19:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, this is a content dispute. You think the article should say one thing, they think differently. You think your edit was NPOV, they think their edit was NPOV. No action is going to be taken here; now please discuss on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to bring to your attention a series of issues related to the creation, redirection, and content handling of articles on Wikipedia, specifically pertaining to the concerning behavior from Pirate of the High Seas (talk · contribs).

1. Article Creation and Title Issues:

  - "Pirate of the High Seas" initially created an article 2023 Kerala bombing. However, this article encountered problems associated with close paraphrasing and its its title did not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for precision and conciseness, as outlined in WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. 
  - I was unware of the existence of this pre-existing article and I created a separate article Kalamassery convention centre bombing (also referred to as 2023 Kochi convention centre blast).  After discovering the existing article, I decided to redirect it to my own article due to the copyright violation problems and naming discrepancies in the original. My intention was to address the copyright violation issues and discrepancies in the original article title.

2. Redirection and Cut-and-Paste Moves:

  - After  that Pirate of the High Seas redirected my article and engaged in cut-and-paste moves, adding whole content contributed by multiple editors, including myself, into their own article.
  - In response to this, I reverted their actions and nominated their article for deletion using the Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD), (which I shouldn't have done).
  - In retaliation, "Pirate of the High Seas" initiated multiple CSD nominations for my article.

While I acknowledge my own mistakes in this matter, particularly in nominating their article and engaging in reverts, I would like to stress the importance of avoiding cut-and-paste moves and ensuring that article titles adhere to WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE guidelines. Now I will not remove CSD from my page but the behavior of Pirate of the High Seas is very concerning, and I believe it is crucial that appropriate actions are taken to address these issues. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, Pirate of the High Seas did acknowledge (through edit summary) that the material merged into "their" article was copied from "yours", which is all that is required for attribution. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

i don't have problem with that, I know he acknowledged that. Title of the article should be about precise incident and his title is very generalized. 2023 Kerala bombing is not WP:PRECISE title. He is edit warring over like I created this article. I don't mind but after deleting please 2023 Kerala bombing should be moved to Kalamassery convention centre bombing naming. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I implore you to consider the First Rule of Holes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Both User4edits and Ankraj giri are more than welcome to discuss the content dispute on the article's talkpage as I had already advised them to do so even before they brought the matter to ANI : here, here and here

As far as DSP2092 is concerned, they twice removed the CSD A10 template from an article they created even though it says, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" and in fact I asked them twice not to do so in my edit summary (see: Don't remove the template and This is not the proper way to contest deletion.). I also advised them the same thing on the article's talkpage here. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, Puffery, SYNTH, OR, and more at Yosef Mizrachi

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.

---

Nycarchitecture212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nycarchitecture212 is an SPA who has engaged in a long-term slow edit war to introduce NPOV puffery, OR/SYNTH, and WP:ABOUTSELF violating material at Yosef Mizrachi. Their first edit to the article, in July, changed sourced criticism to some WP:V-failing puffery. This was reverted with an explanation by Samuelshraga. They then reverted, and I reverted their edit, again pointing out that their prose was not supported by the source. I opened a discussion on the talk page, which has been consistently filibustered and sealioned by Nycarchitecture212, where they have added over a third of all text on the talk page. To cut to the chase and keep this from getting any longer than it needs to be the slow edit warring continues still today, using youtube videos, sources written by the subject, and sources that do not support the text. They have been gently prodded and warned multiple times on their talk page, only to be met with reverts or more filibustering. The same is true on the article talk, where Samuelshraga, Havradim, and myself have tried to explain the issues with their editing in the face of enormous walls of WP:IDHT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe I may be experiencing what's known as 'POV railroading.' The article was initially an attack page I was shocked to come across, and thought I should help out and edit it. My first edit wasn't good because I was not experienced, not because I had bad will. All of my edits in the past month are rock solid, and the quality of my edits going up over time should speak to that.

I've always used their feedback constructively and would argue I've contributed positively. The proof is in the pudding in the amount of times Havdarim already conceded such as here, here and here that I've been correct as well as in the quality of the article comparing the before and after over these past few months, and in the patient discussions I've been having with Samuelshraga on the talk page. Compare for yourself the before and after and decide for yourself if my edits added value or not.

It appears that these editors are reluctant to engage in constructive discussions about edits and ignore critical questions such as here and might be trying to discourage my participation with bullying behavior such as here not accepting edits on their merits" with false narratives, policy misuse, pile-ons, and incivility to discredit and ban.

Samuelshraga and I made progress recently on identifying what sources are needed and after I found them, decided to seek input from Wiki Project Judaism and agreed to await on input from other editors on the career section before adding more content. Sounds good, right?

I thought so too, but during this agreed-upon waiting period, last night Havdarim randomly made unilateral changes to the article without even posting on the talk page, which is complete hypocrisy. Last night, I reverted it to the version prior that me and Samuelshraga were awaiting feedback on from Wiki Project Judaism, and received all of my warnings from Havdarim in just 1 day for this.

I believe this is out of proportion and against policy! Steam-rolling a disagreeing editor with Wikipedia policy and guideline violations is against Wikipedia's code of conduct. I believe this is policy misuse, when he threatened to retaliate for me calling out his POV railroading. I believe Havdarim and his associate planned this vote, and they are are trying very hard to get me off of the article, instead of fulfilling their responsibilities as volunteers and engaging in discussion. Discourse is part of the responsibility and these are deliberate attempts to mischaracterize normative, civil and functional conversations as deviant.

I understand that the situation is somewhat delicate and awkward, especially considering their longer tenure on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the need for open discourse and goodwill applies to all contributors. They are creating a false narrative to bully me off the page and I urge you guys to exercise caution when voting. I think I should be able to continue to work on the article and we have a pending inquiry on Wiki Project Judaism to determine if the sources added are valid that we should see through first. Secondly, I think my track record shoes I have good will and I'd like an admin to create some ground rules that should be established going forward to protect my rights and those of other editors outside the echo chamber. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal (Yosef Mizrachi)

Due to long term edit warring, NPOV, inability to follow sourcing policies, and general IDHT, Nycarchitecture212 is indefinitely partially blocked from Yosef Mizrachi.

• Support per my above comments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and my not-as-eloquently-crafted initial report at User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 132 § At wit's end regarding Nycarchitecture212. Havradim leaf a message 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment In light of the new gratuitous aspersion cast above by the respondent ("I believe Havdarim and his associate planned this vote") I will leave this here. Havradim leaf a message 05:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the above discussion and as well as the messages exchanged at User talk:Nycarchitecture212.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, as someone who has had no involvement in this, and therefore whose opinion should be treated as such, I am somewhat puzzled upon examination, each characterization by both sides seems to be exaggerated somewhat. That's the long and short of my analysis, I don't think I've seen anything that warrants any punitive measures to speak of, rather than a firm advisory to maybe find happier areas of Wikipedia to edit, I suppose. on further reflection, not my place.Remsense聊 05:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support I originally left a comment a few minutes ago but am changing it. I'm sick and tired of dealing with this to be honest, I have tried extremely hard and extremely patiently to deal with this person but I can see why @Havradim is at their wit's end and I'm joining them there. To say that this person is sea-lioning is an understatement. There were a couple of loosely plausible points raised by the respondent, but even when I went to agreed upon forums to try and resolve them they started railroading the discussion there. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Blocked. This case is so obvious I won't wait for a consensus to form. Too much of the time and patience of constructive editors (which as we know is Wikipedia's most precious resource) has already been wasted. I have blocked Nycarchitecture212 indefinitely from Yosef Mizrachi on my own responsibility as an uninvolved admin. The assumptions of bad faith from Nycarchitecture212 above ("I believe Havdarim and his associate planned this vote"), with the handwaving towards the notorious essay POV railroad (which can cheerfully be used to prove absolutely anything) and "the echo chamber" speak volumes, as does the filibustering on User talk:Nycarchitecture212 and on User talk:HJ Mitchell. Bishonen | tålk 10:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen I want to begin by expressing my respect for your perspective, even though I believe it's important to discuss some concerns I have. I find it inappropriate to have been blocked from the page less than 24 hours after a vote took place, especially without a prior consensus. My intent with the edits I've made has always been in good faith. The extended responses on my part are not meant to obstruct discussion but are rather a result of my limited experience in writing concisely within Wikipedia's style guidelines.

  It's worth noting that I disagree with the accusations made against me, believing they are exaggerated. The discussions have involved only a small number of participants, three outside of the ones involved, and consensus appears to be lacking.

  @Samuelshraga I also want to address the characterization of our discussions. I firmly believe that engaging in deliberative conversations is essential for productive editing. It's obvious we've made progress on the article. As you said yourself, "I think it's pretty clear that they are real and accurate, but not very clear how they fit in with WP policy). If the sources that they want to include are up to code, then there would be a real improvement to the article."

  As for the allegation that I was 'railroading' the discussion, I want to clarify that I actually encouraged Havdarim to wait for feedback from Wiki Project Judaism many times, see the page history. It seemed to me that Havdarim was the one pushing forward without consensus by making unilateral changes without posting on the talk page.

  I abstained from making any edits to the page during the agreed-upon waiting period of several weeks while we were getting input from WikiProject Judaism. Thus, I question the characterization that I was 'railroading' the process. Who gave Havdarim the right to remove content we were waiting for feedback on, warn me three times, and then rush a ban all within a day?

  Your frustration is with the wrong person. It appears to me that Havdarim initiated changes without consensus and was railroading the effort on WikiProject Judaism by accusing me of holocaust denial, working for people, and other bizarre charges to provoke me to respond even after I asked him to stop many times. It's exactly what I was trying to avoid. How can you not see that?

  There were certainly issues with the article that remained unaddressed until my contributions, so it's odd that you characterize it as unproductive. Just compare the before and after above. I hope we can work together to make progress. Establishing clear ground rules for future collaboration would be beneficial to prevent similar disputes from arising and I'd be committed to following them. I promise my edits have been in good faith, and think this has been out of proportion. In the event that a ban is imposed, I want to express my intention to appeal it. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  "It's worth noting that I disagree with the accusations made against me." I'm not sure that's worth noting, you know. As a reader of ANI, my impression is that something like 95% of users do disagree with any and all accusations made against them. If you agreed with some accusations, that might be worth noting. As for how long it was after a vote! took place that I blocked you, I blocked you on my own responsibility as an uninvolved admin, as I said. That wouldn't have been inappropriate even if I had done it after no discussion at all. I formed my own opinion and acted on it. Admins frequently do that, per the confidence the community has placed in them by giving them the tools. They can alternatively also sanction somebody per an ANI consensus, but that's not what happened in this case. (That doesn't mean I didn't value the Support comments above; of course I did; they were part of the overall information here.) But why don't you appeal the block to an uninvolved admin? There are instructions for that in the block notice. Appeals usually work better if you keep them fairly concise, and there's a Guide to appealing blocks you can read. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen Thanks for pointing me to this resource, I will use it for the appeal. I believe you acted in good faith, as it says in our Torah "A judge has nothing other than what his eyes see," (Niddah 20b) and it seems I failed to present my case and arguments properly.

  @Remsense I wish you didn't cross out the comment, and I understand that you don't want to get involved. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to add the comment anyway pointing out that this is out of proportion.

  @ScottishFinnishRadish It would only have been sealioning if I continued to make the same points again and again, but that isn't the case. Look at the discourse we had. I was trying to understand your rationale every step of the way so I could use it for the next round of edits. Each round of edits were stronger than the next, because I used the feedback I was given in good will. Any lengthy response was from a lack of experience writing in brevity, not because of anything else. In its current form, the article is a significant improvement from before I began contributing to it. I don't believe you would disagree with that.

  @Samuelshraga I apologize that you were frustrated but voting me off the page wasn't the way to do it. I do think you have been editing in good faith but recently got frustrated and let your yetzer get the best of you. Deferring to Wiki Project Judaism was a good idea, but the problem is that Havradim didn't accept that. I believe you made a mistake updating your Comment to a vote of Support. You know that I was editing in good faith. My use of your feedback in each round of edits, deferment to Wiki Project Judaism and my hiatus of editing during that period speaks to that.

  If you were an honest with yourself you would have rebuked Havradim for railroading that effort with his edits and comments during the haitus, not myself. If you scroll up, I was asking admins to establish ground rules for editing this article going forward, which is difficult to argue isn't in good faith.

  @Havradim I didn't make my case well here, but I still believe you acted against Wikipedia rules and mischaracterized my actions. I believe you have been speaking motzi shem ra and lashon hara against me, and have not been acting in good faith. The case you made against me is completely unacceptable and slanderous, only because you are tired with having to defend keeping the article as an attack page. At every turn, you've been opposing any mention of anything positive on the page, and the condition of the article prior to me contributing and your fierce opposition to adding balance to the article speaks to that. I think you and SFR should not be allowed to work on the article anymore, to be honest.

  This experience has made me rethink if I want to be part of an internet community like this. If it turns out you have been speaking motzi shem ra and lashon hara, you and SFR will be responsible for every person who believe the lies you attempt to maintain on Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi's page (holocaust revisionism claim, etc.) as well as other pages.

  This isn't an article about train cars, it's an article about a real person with real world consequences, and you should be ashamed of yourself for what you've been doing. You are without a doubt a machti harabim, one who influences the masses negatively, and if you care about your soul I truly hope you and SFR repent. As a machti harabim, you and SFR are also responsible for every article and edit I won't be making on Wikipedia to add valuable Jewish content, and for every person who didn't get to read it. Don't bother replying, no future communication is necessary unless you specifically intend to apologize or agree to let a Beit Din rule on this. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  What. The. Pluperfect. Hell. Just FYI, Nycarchitecture212, rabbinical courts do not have jurisdiction over Wikipedia. Regular editors do, Jewish and otherwise. I devoutly hope that anyone ruling on any appeal you make looks at this response, and upgrades your partial block to a more general one, until you resolve to edit with respect to WP:CIVIL, even towards those with whom you disagree. Ravenswing 05:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. I mentioned that a Beit Din could rule on the halachic right and wrong between him and I, but clearly their jurisdiction doesn't extend to Wikipedia. I am committed to treating others with respect and will review the resource you sent me to better achieve that. As a newer editor, I ask for your forgiveness for my frustration. This is a situation I haven't encountered before, and I believe I was treated unfairly. Going forward, I will aim to express my concerns more concisely and calmly, without diminishing the validity of any points I raise. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 05:54, 30 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.

Spani tribe 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.

---

User Krisitor recently removed years old sourced content in the Spani article, which identifies them as an Albanian tribe. Additionally, he changed the article's name to Španje which does not correspond with their Albanian origin. This tribe are thought to be the earliest ancestors of the Albanian Spani family. They practically have the same name. The user has failed to provide references that identify them as Slavic yet continuously changes the article's title to the slavicized form Španje. Kj1595 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said, the only source I removed was not related to the Španje but to the Spani family. And given that this source makes no link between the people and the noble family, it has no place in the article, as in this case we are entering the field of what qualifies as WP:OR. Furthermore, as not all specialists agree that the people in question are of Albanian origin, I have reworked the article for the sake of clarity. Finally, my rejection of your renaming of the article is mainly due to the fact that in most historical studies, the people in question are referred to as Španje or Španji, and not as 'Sphani'. Consequently, forcing the latter name is WP:POV. Krisitor (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I will repeat what I wrote in the technical requests board. You cannot use a slavicized form of a non-slavic family/tribe in the English wikipedia. You claimed they were not slavic yet you use a slavicized form of their name? Kj1595 (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the name which is used in scholarship, nothing more, check Google Books for Španje [256] and you will find several English sources related to the people in question, whereas "Shpani" mostly points to Albanian sources related to the Spani family [257] Krisitor (talk) 11:01, 30 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.

188.70.39.253 WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Comment on talk page: "Seriously when are you dipshits gonna update the casualty figures? You prevent unregistered users from editing the article and, meanwhile, you wank yourselves instead of keeping things up-to-date." Clearly not here. Ecrusized (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Save me the job, I was just about to do the same thing. WP:NOTHERE block urgently required. WCM_email 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this message on Ecrusized's talkpage (and reinstating it after removal) also does not give confidence. That IP's edit history goes back to 9th October, when they were being uncivil on the talkpage of a CTOP article – presumably the same person. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 weeks. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 30 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.

Rowing007

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 want to report @Rowing007 for his consisted re-edits and removal of information on the film page "17 Again", detailing that it was the last film appearance by Matthew Perry before his death. He keeps removing this information, that have been added by numerous users on the site. He then sends me a message of a "Edit Warning" that I was in a edit war (despite him doing this action to many other users).

He has removed edits of people adding this information from the following users: @Thriftycat, @RayKVega & @StephanTheAnimator. I urge @Rowing007 to stop his behaviour imminently. Bluenosezulu (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at Talk:17 Again (film) where editors who think the info should be included should discuss it and reach consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 13:46, 30 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.

Huston family

The facts are getting distorted: [258], [259], [260], [261]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See initial comments about this at WP:BLPN. Classifying an adopted person as unrelated is defamatory to that person as well as being false per what adoption means legally. My reverts back to the correct status quo on those articles reflect the fact that adoption created a real relationship equivalent in all aspects to that of a biological one. Classifying an adopted child as a step-child is factually wrong and degrading. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked, but I've gotta say that I think you could have done better here, Geraldo. The seven reverts in just over an hour on Tony Huston rely on WP:3RRNO#7, but given that exemption specifically says What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption, I'm really not convinced that "describing two people who share exactly one biological parent as half-siblings" fits this bar. It was the IP who reported to BLPN and here; I see you did report at AIV but I don't think that the issue was so urgent you couldn't have waited until the IP was blocked to revert to the last stable version rather than getting in a stupid edit war. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP added this report to ANI, AN and BLPN and reported me to AIV. I just reported it to AIV after the final warning for blatant BLP violations. I was very surprised the AIV report wasn't acted on quickly like most BLP reports for continuing after final warnings generally are. BLP violations should not be left in articles, thus my reverts. Stating that two people who have the same parents are half-siblings, or that an adopted child is a step-child is incorrect and demeaning to the adopted person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Ngunalik

This user Ngunalik is engaged in multiple vandalisms at Lango, Ateker peoples and Kumam people. Their behaviour appears to show that they are not willing to understand the rules about editing on wikipedia and that they are removing sourced information and adding unsourced information without a reliable source. I have warned them on their talk page. See my warnings on the talk page of Ngunalik and their edit summaries on Lango, Ateker peoples and Kumam people for evidence. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree: these edits (I wouldn't call them vandalism, just ignorance and disruption) are not positive. None of their edits seem to be properly verified, and the level of reliability can be gauged in this edit, one of many where they introduce "Hamitic", a long discredited term. Here is another example of "Hamitic" and unverified information. C.Fred was asked by the editor to kick Cookiemonster to the curb; I wonder if they have an opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can they be blocked or given a warning by an administrator over their edits? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've reported the user to the wikipedia administrators intervention against vandalism but no administrators blocked them and my report was there for more than 4 hours than deleted by another user where i was told to come here to report the incident. Many of their edits appear to be removing information and adding unsourced content without a reliable source or source to begin with. Surely this would constitute disruptive editing and would get a user blocked?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618: You've failed to notify Ngunalik of this report. As it states at the top of this page, you are required to do so. Please notify them now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 I have replied extensively to your comments. You have been relentless in your accusation against my editing. I edit and lots of other editors also remove sources that I place. Are you honestly saying I did not add references in the Ateker nor Lango articles? All the references I added were consistent with what were already on those two articles. The latest being reference number 7 on the Lango people's article. The other references 9,10,11 were already on the Article before I contributed. These all show Ateker peoples, Nilo Hamitic, Teso, Lango Kumam. On what basis are you accusing me for these? All the clans and names of clans origins of Lango Kuman are in Teso language. None in Lwo/Luo groups these are separate ethnic groups entirely, although they neighbour each other presently. Ngunalik (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cookiemonster1618 I am not someone who vandalises. In facts most things I have edited and referenced have been supported and opened many areas of new information which were not in Wikipedia. Some editors have commented that what I placed where substantive. You will never find any evidence that Lango or Kumam are originally Lwo/Luo - they are Ateker people. I have sourced this from reliable evidence. The languages of Lango, Kumam and Teso have common origin and grouped as Ateker peoples together with Koromojong etc. Ngunalik (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik While you may be placing references, are they reliable sources? In this edit to Lango people, you add a monograph with no statement of authorship that appears to be self-published to a blog (based on the /wp-content/uploads/ segment of the source's path). Blogs and similar user-generated content are, as a rule, not reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred I did not cite a monograph, I cited an article although I may not agree with everything they wrote in that article - they wrote it in 2020. There are plenty of research work some I cited before, I am not sure whether they are still there in these Lango wiki articles as people change edits from time to time. I have lots of sources available, when I have time I will bring these up. As for ~~1618, the editor gets in to war, keeps bringing the same reference "Ethnolgue" which seems editable or a wiki page of some sort. In the meantime if you look through the Lango or Ateker articles in Wikipedia, ~~1618 removed reference then aserted that Lango and Kumam are not Ateker groups but FAILED to substantiate this claim, to cite any reference or justify the deletion. There are already several references bringing up the same points am bringing - nothing is new from me. You can search these online. Thanks. Ngunalik (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem completely ignorant in that Ethnologue is a linguisitic website that does research on all of the world's languages. No linguist classifies the Lango and Kumam languages as Ateker languages. You went in to these two articles and edited information that was not sourced and also incorrect so i reverted your edits. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Cpploe,pmster1618 You have been only citing Ethnologue are you saying that it is the only reliable source? When last did ethnologue do a primary research in that area of language? Did you see other research work, there has been extensive research on these areas. Vast work is already online, some are still coming. There has been big debate too against wrongs things which had been published by scholars before, so be aware of this.

In my last edits I did put in the comments that I was still editing and have lots of references to bring up but you deleted this in a hurry before I finished. There should be evidence of that comment in the preview part.

https:www.jstor.orgstable41856972

This shows linguistic research work that the Lango Teso are Ateker.

https:lughayangu.comkumam

This group is currently doing work on the kumam language.

https:academic-accelerator.comencyclopediaateker-peoples

Currently I am in the middle of something but will bring out what I am talking about. These are just but a few. Ngunalik (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have tried posting some things but Wiki kept blocking it so trying other ways

Search the following

1) THE BEGINNINGS OF LANGO SOCIETY

2) Ateker Peoples

Encyclopedia, Science News & Research Reviews

3) Lango,Ateker language dictionary

Try searching these for now. ThanksNgunalik (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me fix those for you:

• Lughayangu.com (repaired link, appears to be user-generated content)
• Jstor (repaired link)
• Academic Accelerator appears to be blacklisted on Wikipedia.

Schazjmd (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Cpploe,pmster1618 Thank you for pointing my ignorance. Be aware that I have brought in lots of topics on wikipedia which did not have new articles before and so many editors have built on this. Did you see Nilotic pages before on Wikipedia? several topics I placed and other editors build these. That is what we call team work and it is the essence of research. Some people have been greatful about my contribution. Thank you 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Ngunalik (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik Monograph, article, call it what you will: the point is it's something on the web with no byline and no way to ascertain the editorial rigor that it was subject to. Accordingly, it is not a reliable source. Ethnologue, on the other hand, has an about page that demonstrates editorial rigor and its qualifications as a reliable source.

Thus, I have a specific behavioural concern with your edits, Ngunalik, in that you appear to either not understand or be disregarding the policies governing reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred are you calling this a behavioural problem of mine? I stated that I have edited and cited lots of references what I last put there was not a monograph but a research. There would be some references already removed. I have not had the time to check all but I remember I added some research from North American University . Which monograph are you referring to? As said it could not just be one monograph that I have added ever since I started editing - it can't be. At the moment I am a little busy but will go search this up. Let me know which monograph you are talking about. Ngunalik (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I read the interaction between Ngunalik and Cookiemonster1618 on Cookiemonster1618's Talk page where Cookiemonster1618 repeatedly accused Ngunalik of "vandalism". Ngunalik may be insufficiently familiar with our policies and guidelines about proper sourcing but it seems clear to me that they are editing in good faith. Wikipedia:Vandalism states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Are you aware of the difference between disruptive editing and vandalism, Cookiemonster1618? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Robby Thank you for your encouragement.

RegardsNgunalik (talk) Ngunalik (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

her edits constitute vandalism because she added information without a source and changed sourced information to what she sees fit that is vandalism. She also added unsourced content to those articles as evidenced in Kumam people and Ateker peoples. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That does not fit the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. It may be incorrect, but it's not vandalism, so please drop that argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

She added unsourced information at Ateker peoples that is vandalism so no the argument is not dropped. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cookiemonster1618 Adding unsourced information, in and of itself, is not vandalism. Even adding it habitually does not rise to the level of vandalism. There has to be malice or bad faith in the edits for it to be deemed vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:AbrahamCat at Choke (sports)

I need help. I'm at a complete loss as to how to continue with this issue. For six years now, this editor has been edit warring all sorts of "examples" into this article. In general, these "examples" lack a citation wherein the source claims the example is a choke. I have engaged in discussion with them previously at the talk page. Some years back, AbrahamCat disengaged from the conversation and largely stopped editing. The list was paired down to include only examples where there was a citation referring to the examle as a choke.

AbrahamCat returned to editing with four edits over the last four months. Two of those edits have been to restore an example to this article regarding Australian Rules Football [262][263]. Precisely the same text was added by AbrahamCat in 2017 [264] and 2018 [265]. In essence, this is a slow burn edit war lasting six years.

The citation that has been used in all of these edits is this. There's two significant problems with this citation. First, per perenial reliable sources list, this source should be treated as a blog. Second takes a bit more explanation.

All along I have maintained that "choke" should be used in the citation to sustain that a given sports performance is, in fact, a choke. AbrahamCat has maintained, without sustaining reliable sources, that other terms are also chokes outside of North America. To wit, AbrahamCat has added this edit to assert (without citation) that "bottling it", "lose one's nerve", and "panic" are synonyms for "choke". Let's assume for a minute that's true (even though no citation has been given to support that). The Guardian blog post makes no mention of any of these terms, much less "choke".

After AbrahamCat made their 21 October 2023 reinstatement of this "example", I removed the "example" [266] and then pinged them to the conversation they left five years ago [267].

Today, AbrahamCat reverted the removal [268], and ignored the ping, refusing to engage in further discussion.

I would like other eyes here. If it were me, I would partially block AbrahamCat from this article. I'm very open to other opinions on how to proceed here.

AbrahamCat has been notified of this conversation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hammersoft has been engaging in unjustified content removal from this article for many years, on the basis that his definition of 'choke' alone is the correct one, and that no other synonyms of the term should be accepted in the citations of the examples. Perhaps he should read the wiktionary defintion on the term, which states: 'To perform badly at a crucial stage of a competition, especially when one appears to be clearly winning.' The term is also colloquial, and that many other similar terms exist for this is indisputable. AbrahamCat (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

And now AbrahamCat in this diff is accusing me of "ranting", asserting my "attitude on this stinks", and not editing in good faith. Further, he goes on to assert that it is well established that there are "many synonyms in other nations" for the term "choke", but has not provided any citations to support this assertion. Some help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are you trying to bully people over definitions and synonyms you know to be true?

At which point have I refused to engage in discussion? AbrahamCat (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how many personal attacks do you think it will take to convince people you are correct and I am wrong? According to you, I'm a vandal [269][270], my attitude stinks [271], I don't edit in good faith (same diff as last), I'm ranting (same diff as last), I'm a gatekeeper [272], and now I'm a bully? I think you need to carefully read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and rethink your approach to how you interact with people here.

You refused to engage in discussion when on 22 October 2023 I pinged you to Talk:Choke (sports) with this edit. You ignored the ping and three days later reverted my removal [273], without engaging in discussion at the talk page. It was only after I started the discussion here at WP:AN/I that you returned to the discussion [274] (of course attempting to insult me in the process).

I don't know any synonyms to be true because you've never provided any reference to indicate any terms are akin to "choke". You claimed on the talk page of the article that "The term and its synonyms were agreed upon back in 2018", yet it wasn't. 3 days ago, User:City of Silver pinged you to the talk page to ask you to indicate where it was agreed upon [275]. You've not responded to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

For repeated failure to provide reliable citations while reinstating challenged material, for repeated aspersions on the talk page (such as this) and for failure to back up consensus claims, AbrahamCat has been partially blocked from the article. Lourdes 05:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I provided multiple reliable citations. Your blocking my editing does not change that a) the term choke has multiple synonyms accepted on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and b) that the citations were reliable.

It was Hammersoft who initiated this conflict and they are the ones who should be blocked from editing that page. Your decision only facilitates edit-warring and vandalism. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please can we have a second opinion on this matter? AbrahamCat (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure AbrahamCat. I have no issues with any other administrator unblocking you if they deem fit. The three key issues remain unanswered in your response:

1. You have claimed repeatedly that consensus has been reached on Wikipedia with respect to multiple synonyms that can be used in lieu of the word "Choke" on the article Choke (sports). Can you please provide the link for this consensus?
2. You have claimed repeatedly that you have multiple reliable citations that confirm that synonyms and the word "Choke" can be used interchangeably. Can you please provide these multiple reliable sources?
3. You have claimed repeatedly that Hammersoft has vandalised the article. Can you please provide the diffs that prove this?

You have been blocked for failure to provide evidence for these three issues. Once you do that, it's all clear for you from that point onwards. Thank you, Lourdes 07:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not commenting on the block or the dispute, but just pointing out that the first source used in the article to define Choke also says it has related words and phrases. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Related, yes. Synonym? No. Choking in sports as a concept is studied psychologically. It is not generic for "lose", which is also in the related set [276]. That it's related to other words is meaningless. See the related words for "driving" from the same dictionary and note it says "pull" and "push start", which are hardly synonyms. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism and unsourced edits by Esomeonee7

Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reported this user on 5 October 2023 for persistent vandalism (see archived report), but they paused their editing and nothing came of it. Since then, they've resumed editing with additional unsourced and disruptive edits. Summary:

• They made multiple unexplained unexplained deletions in July and August 2023, all clearly disruptive, e.g.: [277], [278], [279]).
• Those edits and others got them multiple warnings in August on their talk page.
• They continued to vandalize without interruption after that, mostly POV disruptions, e.g.: [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285].
• After I reported them on 5 October (and also gave them another warning), they've continued with unsourced edits, nearly all reverted (not just by me), including: [286], [287], [288], [289], [290].

At no point have they responded to any talk page messages and they've provided almost no edit summaries throughout this time, except for a few early edits in June. R Prazeres (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal: Indef siteban as the user is either WP:NOTHERE or has serious competency issues. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Partial indef till they respond. Lourdes 04:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROMONAME Dailynewsbytes24

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.

---

Dailynewsbytes24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) promotional username with one (so far) edit referencing Dailynewsbytes24.com as a source. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:20, 31 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:Anarkaliofara WP:NOTTHERE

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.

---

Anarkaliofara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and two IP's 106.215.87.182 and 122.177.96.84 made some edits at Aranya Devi Temple, Arrah.

Edits by 106.215.87.182

• Revision as of 13:06, 26 October 2023 Claimed that the temple is a disputed Buddha Vihar
• Revision as of 19:43, 26 October 2023 No edit summary

Edit by 122.177.96.84

• Revision as of 09:51, 27 October 2023 No edit summary

Edits by Anarkaliofara

• Revision as of 12:17, 27 October 2023 Claims adding authentic sources
• Revision as of 12:26, 27 October 2023 No edit summary

Now I reverted all these edits here and explained my actions to registered user at User talk:Anarkaliofara#October 2023. I served Template:uw-vandalism2 and told them that You said that you have added authentic sources for that. I don't know what made you believe that your X (Twitter) account is a reliable source. We accept Verified X accounts as reliable only in few cases. Not the Twitter Blue accounts which is available for everyone. Secondly, quoting your own work as a reliable source also violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and shows you POV pushing nature and promoting/creating blatant hoaxes. Please be careful the next time you do this. To this they reply that I have made personal attacks on them and have violated WP:NPOV. Then they undo my revert and other revisions here and here. Now when we search about the subject there is absolutely no mention about the claim that the temple is a disputed site. Just because one user (with the same username on Wikipedia and Twitter which shows that it might be the same person) on X (formerly Twitter) tweeted it, they want us to publish it on Wikipedia. They also say that there is no difference between Verified Twitter handles and the Blue subscribers. Add much as I know Blue subscribers are not a reliable source and even verified handles are reliable only in few areas. Now I don't want to engage in an edit war therefore I brought this here. All these things point that the user wants to make POV motivated edits and create hoaxes and is not ready to accept their mistake and with no other contributions till the time of report shows that this is a single purpose account and is simply WP:NOTTHERE. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely forgot to mention the personal comments/attacks and breaches of WP:CIVILITY made by the user. All these are available on User talk:Anarkaliofara#October 2023.

• Hi GUPTA,
  It would obviously "appear" to you as vandalism since it is exposing your Caste Biases.
• Hi GUPTA,
  I know that savarna mediocrity is very high these days.  Note: Just to let every know savarna is an upper caste in Hinduism.
• You belonging to BJP(as per your own admission on your page) points to the fact that you should(n't be?) allowed to edit this page for the sake of neutrality.

As we take this discussion forward maybe we can see more. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Anarkaliofara after seeing this report has blanked their talk page. Maybe they think they can hide it. Its still available in the previous revision. They have termed the ANI Notice as WhatsApp Fake News and think that discussing on talk page is vandalising. Again WP:NOTTHERE. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I blanked my Talk Page because this user is harassing me continuously. Anarkaliofara (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Anarkaliofara, please read WP:CONPOL and please follow that when you wish to add any material to Wikipedia articles. Please do not add Twitter links (give a read to our guideline on reliable sources and why primary inputs are not allowed). Finally, do not repeatedly revert challenged material -- read WP:CIVILITY, BRD and WP:DR to understand how to interact with other editors and how to resolve disputes. As far as the current dispute goes, you will be indefinitely blocked soon, unless you follow the policies/guidelines that I have linked here. Thank you, Lourdes 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly keep your tone policing to yourself. It is a public knowledge that this platform relies on people. The times are changing now and the narratives are also getting challenged. Whether, I will be blocked or not is a non-issue but I am happy to see that who were the forces who tarnished the reputation of this platform. It is the Indian mediocre Savarnas.

  Well, It is a number's game. And the recent Caste Census has also revealed the numbers. So, regardless of the ideology, the changes are coming very soon.

  The reason, I did not revert the edits again is because this page will be edited once the government changes. And that is just a matter of a few months. Till then enjoy your mythology. Anarkaliofara (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Anarkaliofara Although you now are indeffed, but still let me tell you we work on facts and not hoaxes. And this is not an Indian Government run organisation that things will change with (dreamy) change in Government. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeff'd. Lourdes 08:43, 31 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.

• Needs TPA revoked. EEng 14:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support that. I told them not to remove block notice (since it was placed few hours ago). I also said that repeated removal may result in TPA revoked but they don't seem to listen. Rest rests on the community. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Note: Self strike

Rest rests. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. EEng 15:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Block notices may be removed, like most other usertalk comments. Only declined unblock requests are required to be left up. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP is correct. The user is free to remove their block notice. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops oop. EEng 18:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Being hounded by an administrator

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 the last little over a week or so User:Drmies continues to watch my edits searching for a reason to ban me. This all started with the edits on death metal; I proposed a band that was much better-representative of the brutal death metal subgenre (with a source included), then one user reverts me and then it got into this big thing where I reverted him back only once. This started this big thing where a user ended up putting a template on my talk page, I admittedly didn't respond very kindly by removing it especially since the user on the other end received no warning whatsoever and all the hostility was solely placed on me. Then he (Drmines) kept reverting me over and over aggressively insisting to keep this template on my talk page for a "edit war" I have already long disengaged from and stopped associating myself with. Leaving all this drama behind, I continued my editing elsehwere. Hours later I added the genre brutal death metal to the article for Defeated Sanity with a source from Metal Injection (a very commonly used source on the site I see used all the time so I saw no issue/problem as it's almost never deemed an unreliable source) then he reverts me, and presuming as he is still salty over the slapfight that just occurred earlier and he threatens to ban me for sourcing a genre for a band. Yes he threatened to ban me for adding sourced content to a page (which is content I never added previous either). If that isn't the most passive agressive thing ever I don't know what is. Then today I received yet another template threatening to ban me over this edit summary, claiming I "harassed" this IP address by doing so. Keep in mind as I write this it's now over a week since that death metal drama is over and he's still hounding me and clearly watching my every move looking for a justified reason to ban me. I've never experienced anything like this in my 10 years of being on the site. Initially in the middle of this I wasn't aware this guy was a admin since I've never seen an admin engage in such petty matters/vindictive behavilor like this before, but seeing as he is I'm not even sure what to do or where to begin. I'm really just tired of this nonsense. I'm considering on just making a new account to be left alone before he does find his reason to give me a block. Second Skin (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not watching the user's "every move"; I saw that another one of their edits was reverted, here, by TylerBurden, and that made me wonder. Good god this user is good at creating drama. Note: they didn't notify me of this, and that's fine; I know because they pinged me in here. But that, and this block/ban confusion, shows how this user is just not invested in a number of the habitual things we do on this collaborative project. Perhaps a metal editor can have a look at their emo/genre edits; from where I stand, they seem like a simple genre warrior. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well you seem to have a very misguided/grossly misinformed idea how harassment works since you've been harassing me for the last week+ because of something i've long moved on over, yet you consider this edit summary "harassment" (which i'm pretty sure no person alive would consider it such. it's just somewhat brash rude at best). - Second Skin (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do like the completely unintentional notification collision that my and Deauthorized independtly trying to notify you had caused, though; sorry for the inconvenience! Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Second Skin looks like most of the time you don’t bother to use edit summaries and when you do they aren’t often helpful. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He's been doing it for ten years, too. Second Skin, get in the habit of using edit summaries, please. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I like how some of the edits you cite show you changing genres on articles that clearly say not to without first discussing on the talk pages. Seems like genre-warring to me. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

So you are telling us you will create a sockpuppet so you can genre-war? Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I reckon someone who genre-wars on metal bands and uses a combination of no edit-summaries, snarky edit-summaries and occasionally stuff like this or this would be fairly easy to spot. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like edit summaries aren't always a good thing for this editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but that response to Binksternet deserves some kind of major warning or sanction for its lack of collegiality. For many years, Binksternet's professional expertise has been really helpful when it comes to music-related articles and deserves a modicum of basic respect. I can't say the same for Second Skin. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be Second Skin's fourth serious warning in the past week. One from Drmies for unsourced content. A second from me for bypassing the blacklisting of Kiwi Farms as part of a defense of Sanctioned Suicide. A third, again from Drmies, for the insult to IP 47. Once we start talking about a fourth warning in a week... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Man goes to a doctor and says "It hursts when I do this." Doctor says "Don't do that." O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't need "so dont give me that shit. You on the other hand have multiple times. Fuckoff" or "lol youre a moron" in edit summaries propose 6 month block or indef. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @DIYeditor: Observation: this user, Second Skin (talk · contribs), has been registered on Wikipedia for nearly a decade and has an empty behavioral block log, so your suggested remedy may be too harsh if the block would be sitewide. However, the use of abusive edit summaries like the ones you mentioned above is clearly unacceptable and can lead to a block. Eyesnore ^talk💬 03:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Does it even take a warning to know not to abuse other editors in edit summaries in that manner? 🤷‍♂️ —DIYeditor (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This apparently isn't isolated. "Fuck off","Lmfao fuck off","Fuck off","Fuck off you little bitch", and more. @Second Skin: (pinging to be sure this is read), you need to clean up your act. Please read WP:CIVIL. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Second Skin, your edits mostly are for the benefit of the project. You need to really stop addressing our editors disrespectfully, and you need to calm down on the genre issue. If you really want this discussion to not lead to a block or a sanction, you would need to address both the issues written here and confirm your understanding. Don't spoil a clean block log man... Lourdes 05:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a twofold commitment:

1. Not put abuse or foul language directed at other editors in edit summaries at any time
2. Always put a useful edit summary, even if brief, for edits to articles

And since the policy may not be crystal clear about 2., I have proposed a clarification at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Change to "Through editing" section. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I will frankly admit that I have negligible patience for aggressive, profane genre warriors who bring nothing of value to the encyclopedia. This whole notion that Western popular music must be sliced and diced up into endless sub-sub-sub-sub genres is ludicrous on the face of it, and that behavior needs to be strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. The advice should be "go blog elsewhere." I think this editor needs a topic ban on music genres until such time as they provide convincing assurances that they will never edit contemptuously and disruptively about music genres ever again. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Respectfully disagree. Behind every genre warrior (who isn't just a compete troll, and I don't think this user is that despite their outbursts) is a passionate fan of music who can be taught to focus those passions the right way on this project. If the genres are supported by reliable sources, they can surely be added to prose. This tattletale ANI report rightfully blowing up in their face should be humiliating enough, and when combined with a stern warning to knock off the abuse, should cause at least some degree of self-reflection; a TBAN at this stage is overly punitive. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 to Cullen328. My longstanding belief is that this ever-increasing sub-sub-sub genre slicing-and-dicing stems from two syndromes: otherwise unremarkable bands with a horror of being seen as sui generis, and otherwise unremarkable music pundits who want to be seen as having "invented" a style. For practical purposes, they are useless as identifiers, and I'm dead certain (for instance) you could ask ten different metal fans to listen to ten different cuts, each from a different band, ask them to pinpoint which of the several dozen "heavy metal genres" they represent, and no one will agree. The fewer editors around eager to die on one hill or another in this silly internecine game the better. Ravenswing 05:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I've lost count of the number of times in which a band has been identified on an article as being "brutal death metal" or "slam crossover-thrashcore" or "experimental post-grunge shoegaze art rock", only for the article to then admit that the band doesn't even refer to themselves by that genre (or they outright reject it), and instead just calls themselves "rock" or "metal". So not only are they not especially useful but they're also apocryphal too, of interest only to the specific subset of people who are interested in categorizing music - putting small boxes inside big boxes. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney, I, too, respectfully disagree with you on this matter. Indefinite (not infinite) topic bans prevent ongoing disruption, and they allow the editor to demonstrate competence in other topic areas. Then, an unblock request in the form of "I now understand that my editing pattern was inappropriate and counterproductive, and I promise to refrain from any similar misconduct ever again." would be likely to be responded to positively. Of course, any such appeal of a topic ban should be written in the editor's own words, not mine. But we cannot accept ongoing, repeated disruptive behavior just because the editor supposedly knows a lot about music. I was in the retail record business for a few years and have strong opinions about the LPs that I sold in that era. But I never insert my own opinions into articles.

Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:TBAN on music genres per @Cullen328: above. In lieu of indefinite block for long-term 8WP:INCIVILITY and lack of compatibility with this project. User creates a toxic work environment and thinks other users are the problem. At the very least, user is warned to cease from the incivil conduct.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would be OK with a CBAN, though I think that we should wait and see if the TBAN fixes the problem. @Second Skin: You are hereby formally warned that further incivility, or "somewhat brash" rudeness, as you put it, may result in a block without further warning. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I year duration for the TBAN works for me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:TBAN on music genres per Cullen328. I considered adding also a short sitewide block for the nasty edit summaries, but many of the ones linked above are years old, so I'm letting it pass with Drmies' recent warning. For now. No prejudice to another admin placing such a block. Bishonen | tålk 08:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC).
• Wait until the editor responds, before we decide to place TBANs. This editor is incivil, has displayed genre-warring; but they have also worked towards betterment of articles. I would request other editors to wait till we see a subsequent response from the editor before taking a decision. Thanks, Lourdes 08:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes: They did respond, above. As I said, sees other users as the problem. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they responded here. Not sure what more we need to wait for. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC).

  You both are actually right. They have been editing much later too, while ignoring these messages. Endorse WP:TBAN on music genres. Lourdes 09:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:TBAN on music genres as above. I note that edit summaries from past couple months suggest this is neither a mere content disagreement nor a good faith mistake and requires intervention, and this option can help prevent some of the more disruptive behavior while acting as WP:ROPE —siroχo 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN on music genres as proposed. The repeated incivility is appalling and seems to the default action of this editor when faced with adversity over their edits. This is wholly unacceptable.Despite many positive edits they haven't learned when to let go of the stick.They are disruptive and uncooperative. They need some time away from this topic. --ARoseWolf 10:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN on music genres due to Second Skin's continued incivility through the user's history of using abusive edit summaries and personal attacks instead of discussing that matter in the talk pages of the articles Second Skin edited. Has the user read WP:BRD yet? If not, the user should stay away from making unilateral changes to music genres without consensus or discussion. One helpful reminder for the user is to read this part of WP:SUMMARYNO: Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack. Eyesnore ^talk💬 13:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN but wonder why it is adequate in light of the extremely abusive edit summaries, no explanation or acknowledgment of which apparently being forthcoming (aside from the first which was a marginal example at most). The TBAN covers the genre problem. I'd like to see a formal warning of a block following any further foul language or personal insults directed at other editors. (Not just "what the fuck" but "fuck you, moron"). —DIYeditor (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do not support 1 year TBAN, indef is more appropriate and can be appealed (after 1 year let's say). There is no guarantee anyone will be watching this editor in the future if nobody cared about or noticed the grossly insulting language in edit summaries before. Again, I'm not sure this addresses what I see as the core problem, the abuse of other editors in edit summaries, which I cannot explain someone doing repeatedly in good faith. Let's see if this editor can work well in other topic areas and let them decide to appeal the TBAN after a year if they so choose, rather than just let it expire. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN on music genres per BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose BOOMERANG TBAN - I believe the user is both capable of self-reflection regarding their genre-warring, and capable of continuing to edit productively in the general music topic area. A TBAN at this point still seems punitive, rather than preventative. I do support a formal warning regarding civility per DIYeditor and others, and of course would support blocks of increasing lengths for any further transgressions in this regard. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Stike per replies above by Cullen and Ravenswing. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GhostOfDanGurney: Unfortunately, the incivility has continued for years, user does not see it as a problem, and user has had plenty of time to reflect. The response in this thread shows that the user is incapable of adjusting their behavior without our help. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the case, we should be !voting on a CBAN and not a TBAN, imo. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  GhostOfDanGurney, I am forced to disagree with you. A community ban is among the most stringent sanctions we have at our disposal. It can be thought of as a "death sentence" A topic ban, on the other hand, gives the editor an easy and generous path to demonstrate that they are capable of improving the encyclopedia in other ways. An editor topic banned from oak trees (if that has ever happened) can show through ther edits to pine trees or palm trees or fir trees that they have abandoned disruptive editing. If the oak tree editor is community banned, we lose an editor, perhaps forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm trying to stay out of this, but I just saw it come by on Recent changes and read over it real quick. I wonder how none of us admins saw "fuck off you little bitch" when it happened--that's just really instantly blockable. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Likely due to being 3-and-a-half years old at this point. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    • "When it happened", GhostOfDanGurney. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN on music genres per Cullen. Great solution that addresses the problem and surgically removes it until the editor can demonstrate that they are on the right path. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• I've been back through Special:Contributions/Second Skin to 2016 and sampled somewhere between (I lost count.) 30 and 40 edits. I think that you'll find that you two share common ground, Cullen328. Rather than being a genre warrior, Second Skin appears to be trying to combat the genre warriors, removing their random genre additions, badly sourced genres, and outright made-up genres (random example from May showing removal of a purported genre that failed verification from checking what the sources cited said; random example from 2020 showing removal of a made-up "Orc Metal" genre that someone had introduced). If anyone above is basing their opinion on the idea that Second Skin is a genre warrior, please think again. I found no evidence.

  That said, Drmies might remember that we've been here before on this very noticeboard, back in 2016, complete with another "fuck off". That discussion in 2016 is the nub of the problem. Second Skin has fallen into the trap of regarding editors without accounts as second-class citizens, and to responding to all templated warnings on xyr user talk page with "fuck off" and "fuck off". The advice, ironically given by Drmies, in Special:Diff/702484979/702485422 to stop doing this and "make [one's point] without insulting editors even if they are wrong or tirritating" was not heeded, and the behaviour in edit summaries has continued for the intervening 7½ years.

  And here we are. All that was needed was to stop the "fuck off"s and "lol no"s and "morons" and the rest back in 2016, and we wouldn't be here.

  Alas, I've never experienced anything like this in my 10 years of being on the site. Initially in the middle of this I wasn't aware this guy was a admin doesn't ring very true, given the events on this very noticeboard in 2016.

  Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  This finding only strengthens my view that this TBAN proposal is way off the mark. Either they need to be told to knock it off with the abuse or else with a final, formal warning, or go straight to the "or else" and just indef. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to emphasise the point, if Uncle G's summation is correct and User:Second Skin you've mostly been trying to combat genre warriors, this illustrates the problem with your approach. If instead of spending all your time telling other editors to fuck off and insulting them in edit summaries, you'd taken the time to explain what you were doing civilly; people would likely have noticed early on in this discussion so a topic ban is unlikely to have had much support, probably it wouldn't even have been considered. Instead because you spent all your time telling other editors to fuck off and insulting them without explaining what you were trying to do, people have (possibly) misunderstood and incorrectly thought you were a genre warrior. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN per above, although I doubt very much this will be sufficient in the long run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse TBan x 1 year per above. No need to go with an indef Tban right out the gate. After a year let's see how they comport themselves. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. I actually feel that an indef or a siteblock for a couple of months would have been the most appropriate outcome here, given that the grossly incivil and disruptive conduct is more of a general CIR issue. But this is obviously the sanction which has gained most traction, and insofar as it sends a message and forces Second Skin to confront and accept the shortfall of their conduct with regard to community expectations for collegial interaction, it may well suffice.
  That said, so much as a single extra substantially uncivil comment during a content dispute in the near future should be seen to constitute cause for a block, in my opinion, and I would hope for/encourage any admin observing such conduct to institute such a block without the need to waste further community time discussing the matter: the behaviour already linked here is well outside basic community standards and below baseline editor competency. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - They can find a way to be productive in other areas of Wikipedia, and this should also inform them on how important it is to be civil to other editors. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN This is an old old story and everybody knows it when they reach a certain age. scope_creep^Talk 13:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Czello, I think this sneer, "Welcome to how album articles are written: information will be repeated from other places", was intended for you. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  In comparison to some of the other diffs posted here, I don't find the edit summary by itself to be anything particularly egregious, given how passionate (and occasionally possessive) other editors on Wikipedia can be about the subject matter of their interest. I do feel that, taken as part of an overall whole of failure to collaborate, there might be some merit to above calls for an attention-grabbing site block. However, I can understand the point of view that TBAN is a incremental step in a series of careful, precise escalations should they become necessary. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  How about a 7 day block for not addressing 95% of the conversation here? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• There's tangentially also this by TJ Whiteley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) off User talk:Second Skin calling Equilibrial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a maniac. Is this behavior par for the course in this subculture of Wikipedia? I've found before that in some of these entertainment genres very loose application of Wikipedia rules occurs, perhaps because serious editors are not involved on the whole. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• I quit editing entirely because I was so uncivilly treated when I tried to fix the inaccurate rendition of Dead’s suicide note. I cited the authoritative source, tried to reason with those who objected, but all I got was registered users and anonymous IPs shouting insults. Of course no one assumed good faith nor bothered to look and find out that I have 13 000+ edits and is an autopatrolled user. The greatest loss in allowing immature and unhinged editors to carry on undeterred is that serious users give up on trying to improve Wikipedia. Equilibrial (talk) 18:44, 31 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:Imtiyaz galip

Imtiyaz galip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New SPaccount adding unsourced promo material to articles related to education in Turkey. Almost all have been rv. See edit history.  // Timothy :: talk  20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as an advertising only account. RegentsPark (comment) 23:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Poetsrogue1 making persistent disruptive edits and not receptive to feedback.

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:Poetsrogue1 has been making persistent disruptive edits, as seen here [291], here [292], and here [293]. When I addressed this on their talk page, their only response was "lmfao". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, please notify this user via their talk page that you've opened this thread. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Sorry, forgot! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the user has been banned in eswiki for doing exactly the same kind of disruptive edits. Dubstar (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked because I'm getting racist vibes. It seems this person is determined to strip these players of legitimacy as European citizens.--v/r - TP 02:56, 30 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:SchroCat and incivility

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

---

I have been in a long-term disagreement with this user. However, today they went beyond merely arguing with me on relevant talk pages and followed me to an unrelated article they’ve made no significant contributions to in order to correct a mistake I made in the most passive-aggressive way possible. When I confronted them about it, they reverted me with an incredibly rude edit summary. Therefore I would like to request a no-fault two-way interaction ban as it is obvious we are incapable of civil interaction. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

McDonald Fraser has been on my watchlist since before I put The Flashman Papers through FLC way back in 2013. Accusing me at ANI of stalking you isn't smart. Are you saying I should have left the error in place rather than correct it? That's even less smart. And yes, when you leave ridiculous messages on my talk page, I'll revert them and tell you that they're ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You could have corrected it in a civilized manner that doesn’t look like your stalking me. How am I supposed to know what’s on your watchlist? You could also consider not continuing to insult and belittle my intelligence at every opportunity. Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given you have, recently, called me "pathological and disruptive" for no other reason than I asked a second uncivil editor not to be rude, I think my mild snark stacks up for very little. I have seen (and been at the end of) way too many aggressive bad faith comments from you to take any complaints from you about other people's "rudeness" at all seriously. Constantly poking people and then running to ANI when they get snarky is a rather tiresome little game that I won't bother with. I'm off to do something useful, so I'll leave the dramah board to you. Any time you want to strike off the unfounded and false accusations made against me would probably be best, but given you think snark should be reported at ANI, the next time you think of calling an editor in good standing pathological and disruptive, I will drop you in here without any qualms at all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"How am I supposed to know what’s on your watchlist?" By assuming good faith, @Dronebogus.

"I think my mild snark stacks up for very little." This is not mild snark, @SchroCat.

Please stop this slap fight. You're both goading each other on. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re right: it doesn’t even come close to the level of mild snark - but well done on bypassing calling another editor “pathological and disruptive”. Please don’t ping me back to this pointless timesink - life is too short to bother about it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You literally called me an idiot. And I struck the “pathological” part. I just never want to have to interact with you again. I’m not seeking to harm you in some way. Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 31 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.

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.

---

• @Vanamonde93: I agree that both parties are at fault here, but I can't help but think you've closed this with the wrong even number of sanctions. There's very few other editors who'd get off with a warning for conduct like SchroCat's here, especially given multiple past blocks for personal attacks, the last in July. Dronebogus' belligerent attitude, meanwhile, has been a recurring topic at AN/I for basically their entire editing career, most recently getting TBANned from XfD in August. At some point we have to say enough is enough, regarding both editors. And if "pathological and disruptive" vs. "genius" + "idiotic messages" isn't that point, then what is? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I don't disagree with you in principle, but I had no stomach for the drama that always ensues from this particular conflict. The last time I was administratively involved with SchroCat and the infobox wars, an AE discussion ended up at ARCA, and JzG (who is an excellent person) and I had to do a lot of talking to sort out our differences. I had approximately 10 minutes free at work, saw this post below my own ANI report above (languishing for lack of attention, still) and thought I could short-circuit the drama. Infoboxes are still a CTOP, so you could apply a unilateral sanction if you wish; and if you really would like me to re-open this I will, but I'm not optimistic as to its outcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have no interest in restarting this. I have no interest in seeing SchroCat blocked. I have no interest in being blocked myself. @Tamzin:, I don’t really like how you seem like you’re looking for an excuse to block both of us for past offenses by way of a current dispute that isn’t individually deserving such a harsh sanction. I’ve discussed this with the closing admin to my satisfaction and SchroCat hasn’t complained further. Let dead threads lie. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus that's fair and all, but you opened this thread less than a day ago. If Tamzin's looking for an excuse, to use your phrase, you seem determined to provide one. At some point editors don't like having their time wasted. Please think long and hard about opening another thread here. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  When you open a thread at WP:ANI for any reason whatsoever, you open yourself to having your conduct examined by other users. We have been here many times before discussing your conduct, and you've talked yourself into community-imposed sanctions each time. I would note that in several of those instances, you actually opened the ANI thread yourself by complaining about another user. That would meet the criterion of being a "chronic, intractable problem". Tamzin is right: How many more times do we have to come back here until it ends in an indef?

  The best thing you can do, right now, is apologize for your conduct, admit that it was unsatisfactory, and explain how you plan to not repeat it, and don't point fingers back at other editors who are unhappy with it. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will admit that my conduct was unbecoming. I already partially redacted it shortly after adding it. I will offer an apology but I doubt SchroCat will care or accept it. But all that said, I’m more or less certain at this point that I’m simply a community persona non grata everyone wants to see blocked at the next opportunity. I know this sounds like whining from a troublemaking jackass but the stress of constantly knowing that you have no defense against even the most blatant bullying and could be community banned at any minor slip-up is not only crushing in real life, adding to my existing problems with anxiety and depression, but paradoxically makes it harder to edit properly. I get I have a laundry list of failures and lots of people don’t like me for understandable reasons, I think about it almost every day and it feels terrible. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: Telling a user to "think long and hard about opening another thread here" is an entirely disruptive comment. This page is here for anyone to report behavioral concerns and other disruptive conduct in need of sanctioning. You are in effect threatening Dronebogus, telling them to ignore all such behavior – however egregious – for fear of having their own conduct scrutinized. This is a completely unacceptable comment, and I suggest you strike it and remove all such notions from your brain forever. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is inevitably going to lead to a mention of Wikipedia:BOOMERANG, a guideline which sounds great on paper but in my experience is interpreted as “if your behavior isn’t spotless you’re an outlaw, so expect sanctions if you go to ANI for any reason, even someone else’s conduct, even if you admit you did something wrong”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Inevitably. Still, I couldn't help but read it and genuinely believe Mackensen had just provided perhaps the worst take I had ever read at ANI, in all my near 20-years on this site. Deserved correction. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Homeostasis07 I decline to accept the trophy for worst take at ANI. I doubt that's even the worst thing that I've said at ANI. I think you've misconstrued my comment and its context. Coming to ANI and then withdrawing it within hours is disruptive. Dronebogus was warned to not use ANI as first resort back in 2022. I can't find the discussion now, but if IIRC a ban from ANI was mooted in the past. I may be misremembering. The intention of my comment is to suggest to Dronebogus that what they think is ANI-worthy and what the community thinks is ANI-worthy often don't overlap. If that's bad advice then Dronebogus is free to not take it. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  “What the community thinks is ANI-worthy” from me is literally nothing. I recently reported what appeared to be coordinated off-wiki harassment and basically got laughed at. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I got boomeranged in December 2012, and then came close to a more serious boomerang in February 2013, and since that day I have started precisely one thread on this noticeboard. (Quite recently—a minor dispute where I wasn't seeking a block, resolved quickly.) I was a non-admin for most of this time, and was involved in no small number of controversies, but I've (almost) always found ways to handle them other than coming here. Avoiding AN/I is not difficult, and is not an unreasonable suggestion to make to someone who keeps running into trouble here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  With no disrespect intended, that’s extremely easy for a highly respected user and admin to say. Admins cannot realistically be sanctioned unless their conduct is bend-over-backwards inexcusable, but they are capable of handing down sanctions summarily. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know it's hard to let things go but your OP above asks for an interaction ban. That's not needed. Just let it go. Schrocat was insulting but their claim is that you got some basic facts wrong (I have no idea about that issue). Focus on the factual claim rather than the edit summary. If (if) you made a basic factual error, I'm afraid you have to swallow it when your opponent notices. You should know that inserting a space where it does not belong in the article so you can add a dummy-edit summary asking not to be insulted is not useful. Even less useful is complaining on the opponent's talk page. Just let it go. If you have six months being squeaky clean and you are still being insulted without reason, there might be an opportunity to have redress. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I thought the space was a genuine error. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Still, I think you’re missing the meat of the situation— I don’t care I made an error; I care that SchroCat called me stupid twice in a row, without remorse, over it; and now you’re suggesting that I not only shouldn’t have been offended by that, but also that a less severe month-old insult I admitted was poor form at the time disqualifies me from being offended? Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite your claims, I did not call you stupid. I said that your comment was stupid. That’s a rather different thing that you and others seem to have got rather wrong. It pales into insignificance to calling someone “pathological and disruptive” and then “obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive”. That’s just a lovely way to talk about another editor solely for having a different opinion to you. But fine, you just get upset because I referred to one of your comments not being very good while throwing around some really unpleasant insults at others. It’s great to see that the ArbCom infobox civility decision means sweet Fanny Adams, given the aggressive insults you are happy to throw at people.

although it’s unlikely there’re will be an interaction ban, I have no desire to interact with someone who is happy to be so aggressive and insulting to others, but feel free to avoid me or any of the articles I’ve worked on. It would bring me great delight if you did so. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You call my comments idiotic, you’re basically saying I’m an idiot. You also called me “genius” sarcastically, which obviously means idiot, as well as saying “get the basics right sometime”, which unsubtly implies I typically am too stupid to even get “the basics” right. And then you made insinuations about my intelligence during this very thread, asserting my actions were not “smart”. In context it’s hard not to read that as a continuation of the insult train on top of your general incivility. So yes, I stand by my assertion that you functionally called me stupid. Which is a low I’ve never stooped to with you, even when using some unflattering ad hominem adjectives to describe you which I regret and apologize for. Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong on how you have ‘translated’ my comment. I use and choose my words carefully: you are applying an incorrect interpretation of the actual words. Again, I have no desire to continue discussing this further, except to reiterate that I have not called you stupid, but I did say you left a stupid comment. This still pales into insignificance in comparison to “pathological and disruptive” and then “obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive”. If you don’t think that is ‘low’, then I advise you pick up a dictionary and actually look at what those insults really mean. I’m out: there’s no point in trying to explain this if you can’t see just how insulting “pathological and disruptive” and “obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive” really is. - SchroCat (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. It would be wise for both of you to disengage from this thread; for best results you might avoid each other (and ANI) completely in the near future. Please consider just walking away, as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s literally why I started this thread, to formally ask for an interaction ban. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And the nominees for "2023's Most avoidable blocks" are...  // Timothy :: talk  02:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s real classy. I’d highly recommend deleting that comment and politely refrain from further knitting beside the guillotine. Dronebogus (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d highly recommend the nominee walk away as advised.  // Timothy :: talk  02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Is sarcastic cruelty the only language anyone speaks at ANI? Dronebogus (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Suggest WP:ARBCOM if situation continues. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 1 November 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.

Omer123hussain: persistent sourcing issues

Omer123hussain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Omer123hussain is a longstanding editor with a commendable enthusiasm for the history and culture of Telangana. His contributions, however, have a long history of problems with original research and verifiability, shading into NPOV and copyright issues. These have been raised with him repeatedly, but he has brushed them off in his apparent eagerness for recognized content. Here is a sampling of recent issues, some from spot-checks I performed, some flagged by others:

• In the Bazaars of Hyderabad; close paraphrasing, source-to-text integrity issues, leading to a failed GA review in July 2023: [294], [295].
• Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha; extraordinary claims being made with poor sources; considerable uncited content. [296] (ongoing)
• Golconda diamonds; rife with sourcing issues, see DYK nom (for the record, I was the admin who pulled this from prep) and GA reassessment (October 2022 to September 2023). See also this contorted history.
• Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Memorial; GAN failed due to sourcing issues [297] (September 2022)
• This edit to Telangana adds two sources; the first verifies the name of the individual being discussed, but doesn't support anything to do with etymology or history; the second supports even less (September 2023)
• This edit to Asaf Jahi dynasty; added source has nothing to say about a siege. (September 2023)
• This edit to Nigar Shaji; cited sources do not support the content added. (September 2023)
• Tasmia Qwani; a randomly selected older article (2015), about a religious ritual among Hyderabadi Muslims. The article as created contains three sources; the first discusses a related custom among Siddis; the second is biographical, and makes no generalizations; the third provides definition only, and no description. The majority of the article's content is unsupported.
• Most recent talk page archive [298] lists three pages draftified at NPR, and subsequently deleted, dating back to December 2021.

This user is working in good faith, but they are making edits that would be concerning in a new editor despite having been here for years. They need, at the very least, hands-on mentoring that I am unable to provide, and more severe sanctions may be needed. pinging Fram, who discussed the OR issues with Omer at length. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree due to shortage of time and connectivity issue i could not spare much time for editing but I dont agree with your accusations atleast for now after seeing your first accusation for close paraphrasing; What do you mean by this? you are comparing lines of poem as close paraphrasing here.

Could you elobrate "more severe sanctions may be needed" and for what ? is it for some couple of failed GA and DYK nominations, which i could not respont for above mentioned reson. Any way need to look in detail for your above accusations.

Omer123hussain (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the close paraphrasing flagged by the GA reviewer was not a copyvio? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Omer123hussain, for your benefit, I actually downloaded the full book that you referred to at Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious and searched for all the places where the term "Hadhrami Arabs" was quoted. It is quoted nowhere in the book. I also searched for "Hadhrami" and "Chaush" separately. Same result; no reference to the said terms. I further searched all references to the term "Arabs" and the book does not anywhere support what you have staunchly defended at the said talk page. Given all the above examples, and given continuing evidence of the same at multiple locations, including at the now referenced Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious, where, despite repeated assertions to the contrary by other editors, you continued claiming the book referenced Hadhrami/Hadrami/Chaush Arabs, and in fact disruptively reinstated the citation and the challenged material, I am blocking you from article space. You are free to make your case to other administrators. Thank you, Lourdes 05:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(For any interested editor, I can share the pdf of the said book... Thank you. Lourdes 05:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC))

When paid editing tells on themselves...

https://www.prweb.com/releases/criminal-defense-attorney-ken-rosenfeld-of-the-rosenfeld-law-firm-to-showcase-25-years-of-expertise-accomplishments-in-upcoming-wikipedia-page-301970700.html

Just a heads up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 08:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

lol, also what’s with that screenshot? Is it of a draft or something? Kenneth L. Rosenfeld doesn’t exist. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It can't be a screenshot: Wrong fonts, and, perhaps most tellingly, a lack of headers AND the footnotes aren't superscripted. It appears to be a bad photoshop mockup, and that's... weird, right? Like, feels like a lot more work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 09:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"and Wikipedia is a great resource, whether for prospective clients or just people in general". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That article will get intense scrutiny if and when it appears, and looking at the involved accounts should be interesting. The press release almost cries out "mock me for blatant self-promotion!" Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

From a quick Google search neither the lawyer nor the company seem to be even remotely close to being notable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just bizarre. No draft either. Secretlondon (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely astonishing. When a teenager does this then we chalk this up to immaturity but a fully educated grown adult? Wow! Is there any way that this could be a prank by one of his competitors trying to make him look bad? Anyway, I've watchlisted a few variants of his name and the name of the company. I suggest others do likewise. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears to come from the press office of his law firm. Secretlondon (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Has someone extracted $$$ from Rosenfeld on the promise that the screenshotted article is going live real soon now? Prepared offline so the victim can't see the status of the article in draft or sandbox and no editor account can be identified as its creator - so the scammer can claim to be any prolific editor in good standing. NebY (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone should create the drafts ahead of time with a couple common spellings, just to see what happens. Hy Brasil (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. That would be disruptive. MarioGom (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, it would be getting ahead of the issue. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Anybody who did that could come under suspicion of being the spammer and just make trouble for themselves and confuse everybody else. I don't think it is a good idea. I also don't think that pre-salting it is a good idea. Let's all watchlist the likely titles and just wait and see whether it actually turns up and, if it does, see who creates it and find out what else they have created and whether they have any sockpuppets. Who knows. It might uncover a whole nest of vipers. DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And I'll be sure to edit in that the law school he attended is unaccredited. EEng 14:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Self-promotional though this press release is, and the likelihood that a posted article would need to be severely pruned, the fellow might turn out to meet notability standards. Ravenswing 05:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Most likely this is the off-wiki mock draft delivered to the customer by an undisclosed paid editing company, which would then publish it as a draft in Wikipedia some time after payment. It's a common practice. MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Once he doesn't get his way, there'll be another article along the lines of "WIKIPEDIA IS A TERRIBLE RESOURCE." Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 11:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• For what its worth, this isn't likely to be published here. The purpose is clearly to have something come up when you search their name and Wikipedia. Since there won't be an article here, people will see that page with that unchangeable mockup. SEO success. Just here for the facts (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure it's a legal no-no to publish something purporting to be a WP article -- complete with our logo -- when it isn't. If he'd attended an accredited law school he would know that. EEng 06:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Alawi Mohamed Alsakkaf

Hello. I'm here to request an indefinite block for User:Alawi Mohamed Alsakkaf. The user has made 28 contributions to Wikipedia, every single one of which has been reverted as vandalism. You can see the user's edit history here. Every single edit was reverted. The user comes back to Wikipedia sporadically to make vandal edits, is what it seems, since they have only edited Wikipedia on four different days. Most notably, recently, the user went on 2023 Ballon d'Or to make this edit, which was just complete vandalism. This edit perfectly encapsulates all of the user's edit here on Wikipedia. It's clear that Alawi Mohamed Alsakkaf is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Per WP:BLOCKP, it is a reasonable risk that on any given day, the user will return to make more such edits to Wikipedia. The user should therefore be indefinetely blocked per the blocking policy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV because I agree it seems to be vandalism only, some of it "subtle vandalism". —siroχo 06:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the user has been blocked. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Confederate monuments fall under topic 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.

---

Does posting about the removal of confederate monuments fall under a post 1992 topic ban on politics? It’s not directly political but they were voted on to be removed. I don’t want to get banned so I came here to ask before I did anything. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• In my opinion, yes, User:Lima Bean Farmer. It's a good thing to ask: thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Lima Bean Farmer, I agree with Drmies. Confederate monuments are highly politicized in contemporary US politics. And politics encompasses much more than votes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 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: Jawaan1 Is Not here to edit constructively

User: Jawaan1 Is Not here to edit constructively

• Jawaan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edits made by this editor have all been non-constructive, and have included creating BLPs of Muhammed Luqman or Muhammad Luqman, and moving Muhammad Hassaan from draft space to article space, and then removing the AFD tag from Muhammad Hassaan. I haven't had time to research whether this is a sock, or who the sockpuppeteer is. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's worse than that. I've restored the status quo ante after the wholesale removal of one of the Mohammed Shah's, and another administrator has revoked the editing privileges. But see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lh1011, at least two open AFD discussions (Muhammad Shahzad Mohmand (AfD discussion), Muhammad Hassaan (AfD discussion)), hoax userpages, and a whole bunch of mucking around at AFC, for all of the time of everyone else cleaning up afterwards that 1 person is wasting. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I did delete those 2 articles as G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Iterresise's MEATBOT behavior removing template from articles,changing DAB page layouts, etc.

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 to draw attention to Iterresise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is going on a pogrom against transclusions of a particular template ({{Crossreference}}) that the editor doesn't like; see recent contribution history which consists of little but deletion of this template at page after page, with a copy-pasted opinion "unnecessary" or "not necessary" as the robotic so-called rationale.

The editor vented at me personally about this template, in rather less than cogent terms, but has as far as I can determine sought no consensus at all, other than a single brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Note that ..., It is important to ..., Surprisingly ..., Of course ..., which is characterized by a very strange (and refuted) claim that such cross-references are not "ever permissible". Iterresise certainly did not get any consensus there to mass-remove this template, and has opened no discussions I can find about removing it at any of the targeted articles, nor opened a WP:TFD discussion about the template, or otherwise done anything that might ultimately come to support his position. Whether the template should be removed in some particular case is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page, and few people would object to removing it unilaterally in a case where a rationale makes a clear showing that it is unhelpful. But robotically deleting it over and over again at page after page is clearly WP:MEATBOT behavior with no consensus behind it.

This is not the only WP:FAITACCOMPLI activity by this editor. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Or variants: Iterresise again went on a sweep, this time of changing disambiguation pages to a new lead/intro format this editor invented, then after the fact came to WT:DAB to "propose" the change, only to be met with consistent resistance. The editor is engaging in a long-winded WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern (not listening to reasons why his proposal is not practical, and instead just repeating the propsal again as if no objections were raised), and battleground behavior there, has not undone the mess he made, and insists "I see no harm in removing 'or variants' language at this time" [299], which is difficult to read as anything but a declaration that he's going to continue no matter what. Then he histrionically complains that multiple editors disagreeing with him amounts to "WP:TAGTEAMING" [300]. This brings to mind WP:COMPETENCE: an editor has to be able to understand how the WP:Consensus process works, and that being disagreed with is not being personally attacked.

The editor then engaged in an actual WP:TAGTEAM / WP:GANG behavior, by going through my talk page looking for other people I've had disagreements with, and attempted to recruit one of them to join him in opposing me [301], which is small-scale WP:CANVASSING, and more victim posturing.

This is several kinds of not-okay behavior. At a bare minimum, I think the editor needs to be required to undo the mass changes they made to the templating at various articles and the mass changes they made to disambiguation pages, and narrowly topic-banned from making any more such changes, unless and until there is an actual consensus to implement such sweeping alterations.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: This editor is one who routinely blanks out any crticism or complaint posted to his talk page, but the issues are worth a review: [302][303][304][305][306] A fairly long litany of objectionable unilateral actions, followed generally by nothing (there or anywhere else) that resembles an attempt to establish a consensus for what the editor wants to do. I even checked the talk pages of every single article mentioned in these complaints, and Iterresise only posted to one of them. This was after he engaged in the WP:POINT behavior of removing the most famous prog-rock band in the world from List of progressive rock artists[307]; their sole discussion input was to ask "The entry for rush doesn't have a real reference. Why is it included? I already sent a message on the reverter's talk page."[308] (Tracked that edit down, too, and it's more unreasonable hostility [309], taking someone to task for citing an album.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a long post so I will have to respond point by point.

In this post, user:SMcCandlish has already started off to insult me with the phrase "in rather less than cogent terms". Rather than speaking to me personally first on my talk page about his concerns, he files a bad faith complaint against me. Iterresise (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"come to support his position": There is no further need to defend any of my positions. I have already discussed with good faith my concerns in any proposal I made. I am not sure which specific issue he has with me now that he didn't have with me before. Iterresise (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"is clearly WP:MEATBOT behavior with no consensus": I don't see this as relevant per WP:BRD. Iterresise (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

SMcCandlish posts the following rude and disrespectful statement: "This is a discussion, not an article, and we don't need citations to simply have a discussion. But if you want to be a WP:WIKILAWYER and try to WP:WIN every discussion you get into with pointless arguments and bluster, instead of employing common sense and considering that some people may actually know something you don't, and instead want to make out like they're blatantly lying to you, here you go:". Now he posts about my WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. He was asked to give it up since I have exhausted all my options. He was asked to give it up a second time but instead he continues to assume bad faith and to make this post here to continue the bad faith. He was respectfully asked to assume good faith.

[edit conflict] Now he makes this post here to mischaracterize all the discussions I've had. There's nothing here but, in his words, bluster. Iterresise (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This really clearly illustrates the WP:COMPETENCE problem. This is an editor who interprets any disagreement with their reasoning as an "insult" and repeatedly makes accusations of "bad faith" in response to such criticism or disagreement. Anyone who has difficulties doing the very basic compartmentalizing of "I am not the idea I proposed and the idea I proposed is not me" is going to cause problems here. I assume the problems are mitigable in this case by just preventing the editor for continuing the disruptive meatbot behavior; collaborative competence actually can be learned over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going through your head. I've been respectful and patient but you've exhausted all of that. Iterresise (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in engaging in a bunch of back-and-forth banter with you. The point of opening an ANI discussion is to get community input on a problem (in this case FAITACCOMPLI + MEATBOT activity, to which your alleged respectfulness and patience are irrelevant), not to engage in two-party bickering.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then read up on WP:CIVIL. I got off your talk page and then you followed me to user:Infinity Knight's talk page. You are not obligated to opine. You were disrespectful to him too. I think it would be in your best interests if you were to impose a selfblock via wikibreak. Iterresise (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

More continued incivility with the edit summary hand waving Iterresise (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Iterresise is prevaricating. He pinged me directly to Infinity Knight's talk page. And the above comment interpreting my objection to their engaging in hand-waving behavior as "incivility" is further demonstration of the COMPETENCE problem. This is an editor who simply cannot brook any criticism; if you criticize any aspect of their actions, behavior, or ideas, you are necessarily attacking them personally. This viewpoint is fundamentally at odds with how WP operates, though I remain open to the idea that a more competent approach can be learned, as long as we don't have to put up with disruptive meatbot activity until that evolution as an editor comes about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not prevaricating. What evidence to you have that I am? Which sense are you employing? Well of course I pinged him on to his talk page. I found your characterization of his actions to be disrespectful. Otherwise I would have pinged him on my talk page. Was that what he would have preferred after he told me to stay off his talk page?

You stated on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Or_variants:

• "and you're going round in circles with a bunch of hand-waving"
• "Repeating me back to myself but adding nothing to it other than vague handwaving like "you have misunderstood" without explaining any such alleged misunderstanding, is not an argument, it's just noise" [own emphasis]

This is 3 times total use of the word "handwaving". If you look at the article: it is disrespectful. So why use it? Is this more disrespect with the word "noise"? Iterresise (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

And again we're right back to the underlying competence problem: criticism is not "disrespect". No one is owed special "respect" here, just the equal respect of regular human dignity. Iterresise is clearly looking for the deference sort of respect, and seems not realize he is just one among a vast sea of equals, any of whom may raise concerns about edits and unconstructive behavior patterns. For this editor, any criticism is a reason to dig in and battleground repetitively. When someone is at ANI for meatbot and fait accompli actions and avoids addressing these actions (even after an administrative warning to stop them, because they've continued during this ANI), never indicates any understanding why they were disruptive, but instead verbally waves their hands around trying desperately to distract people away from the topic of the ANI with claims of victimhood, this is absolutely, positively, unmistakably handwaving. "Do not look at the man behind the curtain", turned up to 11. So is pinging me to a talk page and then trying to make me out as having been wiki-stalking him. Same with implication that I've falsely accused him of something ("What evidence to you have that I am?", after I already provided the diff [310]). And so on. I am starting to doubt my own belief in this user's behavior probably improving over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Iterresise, on the face of it, your editing spree as described above on multiple articles, seems highly disruptive to Wikipedia and blockable. Is there any forum where you can show consensus has been obtained to undertake these mass changes? (May I also request you to desist from making any such or newly found changes you might wish to make on a mass basis until these discussions have been concluded?) Thank you, Lourdes 08:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is this with regards to WP:MEATBOT? It says: "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity". The issue is whether the quality of the edit has been sacrificed. If I were to undo all the edits, that would mean that all the edits were not improvements which would contradict WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Iterresise (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please undo all your mass template-removal/template-change edits immediately. You do not understand the concept of BRD. You need to take consensus before undertaking mass edits. Anyway, please revert these immediately. Lourdes 09:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked for a consensus for these mass changes and I can't find one. They likely ought to be reverted. Can we get a script written to do that? I wouldn't fancy doing it manually.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• There is also something worrying about Iterresise's post on Infinity Knight's page mentioned above, where they ask Infinity Knight if SmcCandlish "has been disrespectful elsewhere". The notion that SmC was "disrespectful" to IK in the first place is far-fetched enough; asking for dirt from "elsewhere" is downright battleground-y. Bishonen | tålk 14:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC).

  Do you have any WP:diffs to show everyone that I made personal attacks against him? Iterresise (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Did I talk about you making personal attacks against anybody? (Hint: no.) Bishonen | tålk 11:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC).

  I took a look at User talk:SMcCandlish and I saw the comment that was written so I thought it was disrespectful. I didn't do further research. I just seemed disrespectful prima facie. Iterresise (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, on October 21 he ran around indiscriminately removing {{see above}} templates from articles at a rate of one every minute or two. Then the next day he went around doing the same thing with {{see below}}. His edits summaries were always "unnecessary", as if that meant something. He clearly isn't taking the time to actually judge the role of these templates in the reader's experience. He needs to find something else to do that actually improves things. EEng 16:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid#Note_that_...,_It_is_important_to_...,_What_is_...?,_Surprisingly_...,_Of_course_... specifically states: "Neutral cross-references, e.g. (See also Cymric cat.), are permissible (and best done with the {{crossreference}} template), but are often best reworded (The Cymric cat is a recent breed developed from the Manx.)."

  I've already have had objection here but followed the guidance by rewriting.

  Here, an editor objected to my concern and I am currently in discussion with him. Iterresise (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I guess I need to be more plain: Stop jumping from page to page removing random stuff you don't understand in obeisance to your simpleminded interpretation of random guidelines. Got it? EEng 08:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also, in the first of the above cases, it's Iterresise making a statement then unilaterally acting again without any input pro or con [311]. In the second, Iterresise misrepresented me as having said something in support of his removal actions, which I had to correct [312]; he has been met with no agreement on the talk page and is doing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU thing again with regard to clear and well-stated rationales for the template's use. It's as if because Iterresise has excercised his own pre-judgment that the template is an evil and the guideline must mean "always no matter what" where it says "often", the die is already cast.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Update: Here's the smoking gun on that: [313]. Since Iterresise doesn't like that the guideline says "often" instead of his preferred "not permissible", he's just proceeded as if it said what he wished it said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:EEng added "often". Maybe I am coming to understand the reasoning? Maybe it should be discussed there? There is an application of that section of the policy here but it might need to be rewritten. Iterresise (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever. Blind removal isn't "rewording". EEng 09:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish has captured Iterresise's editing and interaction patterns perfectly, and I wholeheartedly support their proposed actions: require Iterresise to undo the whole slew of dab intro and (Edit: I'm nearly done cleaning these up myself. 19:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)) cross-reference edits, and topic-ban them from same. I'm less optimistic about the potential of this editor to reform their attitude; the attempt to recruit Infinity Knight is particularly galling and suggests a scorched-earth mindset to me. I won't be surprised if this is not their last appearance at ANI. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly did I say I would keep doing? Iterresise (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"I see no harm in removing "or variants" language at this time." SMcCandlish and I both (reasonably) took that to mean you intended to continue. Whether you did or not, treating a warning not to continue as a personal attack is absurd and part of the reason you're here. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You have to be explicit with which warning you are referring to and where did I assume that it would be a personal attack? You should provide diffs because this abrasiveness is equally absurd. Iterresise (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything, since you know exactly which comments I'm talking about, and not a single person here is buying what you're selling. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Try reading the entire discussion, and absorbing it, and thinking carefully about what to do next, instead of picking things at random you don't like and then engaging in "I must get the last word" behavior. You were administratively warned, twice, days ago: [314][315]. And you need to stop this "poor me, I'm such a victim" act. No one is buying it. No one is being "abrasive" or otherwise inappropriate toward you (and you sure do like to make such accusations [316] any time you meet resistance or advice). You have been disruptive, on a pretty large scale, everyone is pointing that out to you, and you are just not getting it, even slightly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Iterresise, given your deliberate avoidance of answering my clear query above, let me issue this final administrative warning. In case you undertake any mass changes of any areas as mentioned in this discussion, you stand the chance of getting immediately and indefinitely blocked. Secondly, you do need to revert all the mass changes you have undertaken without consensus, and while having an IDHT attitude to multiple editors advising you to stop. Let me know if any part of this is unclear. Thank you, Lourdes 05:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify: I didn't go to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval for any of my edits. They were manually made, but are you asking me to undo template removal edits? There are specific improvements to articles such as testosterone. I don't understand why WP:BRD doesn't apply in this case. Iterresise (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Iterresise, BRD is for individual edits on a single page. The community cannot be investing time to go through mass edits and discuss each and every edit with you. It doesn't matter whether you believe there are specific improvements that you made to articles. Please undo all your template-removal/template-changing edits as you have not discussed them before undertaking these controversial edits. It is good that you are discussing these here though. Thank you in advance for undertaking this. Lourdes 09:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Swpb is the one proposing me to undo the edits. His discourse with me is excessively abrasive. Is it possible to ignore his request? Iterresise (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's not just swpb who is asking you to revert your edits, many other editors are as well, including Lourdes, who is an admin, immediately above! And no you can't ignore them! Paul August ☎ 11:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• And it's getting worse. I wasn't even looking for anything like this; it just came across my watchlist. Iterresise has now very inappropriately accused someone of WP:OWN [317] simply for reverting [318] an undiscussed change Iterresise made [319] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. Iterresise's change had nothing to do with grammar, as they suggested, but with adding unecessarily legalistic wording. I'm starting to think that a broader topic-ban from MoS (which is covered by WP:CTOP) might be in order, since the problem this ANI opened with comes down to Iterresise mistakenly believing that an MoS line-item that reads "often" equates to "must" and empowers him to go on an across-the-board "enforcement" rampage. Even where MoS does not have use-editorial-discretion language like "often" and is more emphatic, we still treat it as a guideline to which exceptions may apply, and use consensus formation processes (WP:RM, etc.) to go about implementing changes at articles to comply, and listen to principled objections, and don't act as robotic enforcers, much less ones who accuse anyone who opposes them of being OWNers (and all the things Iterresise has accused me of). If Iterresise is going to react this way every time they are reverted making a change at a guideline page (where most any undiscussed change by anyone gets reverted), then this user should not be editing any guideline pages at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I can't see any very recent bad contributions from Iterresise. Making systematic changes against objections and with no clear consensus is very disruptive and must stop. If there is evidence of future problems, please reply here (or notify me if this gets archived) and I will see if a block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the editor is clearly playing the "lay low for a while" game now, hoping this all blows over without any action, but I think there's already consensus here for the narrow topic-ban idea and being required to revert the mess he made (to the extent it's not been undone by Swpb already).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  And now he's opened another front in his war on cross-references (WT:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid#Note_that_...,_It_is_important_to_...,_Surprisingly_...,_Of_course_...), instead of answering here for the mess he's already made. EEng 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Casting of ass

Persians

• Between the WP:ICANTHEARYOU for not understanding (or ignoring) that multiple users have said that Iterresise's mass edits are being disruptive and he needs to revert them compounded with the constant casting of aspersions towards any editor that disagrees with him as either being uncivil, insulting him, being abrasive, is almost comical. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• It's high time for a block. Iterresise has been given ample opportunity here to clean up their mess or show any measure of contrition, and they've chosen instead to double (triple? quadruple?) down on playing accusation games on multiple fronts. Nothing short of a block is going to get through, if even that will. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support block this is the kind of editor that drives others off Wikipedia for nothing. Needs to stop now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Question: I did a quick check ten minutes ago and it appeared that at least some edits were being self-reverted. Are further problems still evident? @Iterresise: Do you have a comment about the current situation? Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've reverted the {{see above}} and {{see below}} template changes I made but I noticed Swpb made a revert without an edit summary which seems out of scope of the request. Iterresise (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still not hearing that you understand why what you've been doing is inappropriate. EEng 21:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The issue was with the wholesale removal of {{see above}} and {{see below}}. Removing them was meatboty and because my view is that they are not helpful, this was against consensus.

  Swpb's revert seems to me to be a WP:LASTWORD issue. Iterresise (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm detecting a disturbing habit here of "I got criticized for doing X, so let's see if I can try to accuse someone else of doing X instead, to distract attention away from me." Not only was Iterresise asked above to stop engaging in last-word behavior, only to try to get the last word here again by accusing someone else of last-word behavior, he's also tried to wave away concerns about his programmatically using misleading, unhelpful, or missing edit summaries by pointing at another editor who happened to miss including an edit summary one time. This is not a good sign, in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  You really are your own worst enemy, you know that right? When I saw you started reverting yourself, I was pleasantly surprised and ready to rescind my call for a block. I spot-checked your work, saw a cross-reference removal you apparently missed, and reverted it for you. This is the response I get? I was an idiot to have any hope that you'd gotten the picture, or that you ever will. I don't believe you are capable of being a net positive to the project, and you should no longer be allowed to waste our time. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Relatedly, Iterresise has been insisting at Talk:Anti-LGBT rhetoric that link anchors using <span> tags should be removed as confusing for new editors. I dunno why anyone would balk at HTML while editing a web page, but have directed them to resources they can use for editing help. May be worth keeping an eye on the topic of changes to Wiki-markup as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Block, please

• Yeah, the "block" idea is starting to look better all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Just read the entire thread in full and the above is some of the most blatant battleground/IDHT behaviour I've seen in a while. I fully support a block for disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• For persistent inability to acknowledge what they're doing wrong, the nonsense about Swpb's edit a few posts above, and the absurd waste of editor time in this thread and elsewhere, an indef is amply justified until they can explain how they'll avoid repeating the same mistakes. EEng 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block for editorial behaviour absolutely inconsistent with our policies and guidelines. Lourdes 05:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• As above, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 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.

DYK queues

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

---

All Did you know queues are empty. To avoid a missed DYK update, admin assistance in moving preps to queues is required within 23 hours' time. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 00:42, 2 November 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.

Block please

nothere Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) and now this Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, edits revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, this looks behaviourally and technically like the same person behind the Hussienpour account, along with a few other troll accounts that I see have been globally locked; there don't appear to be any connected accounts that are unblocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:180.150.112.245

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 was blocked in July for a month for block evasion. Since coming out of a block it's talk page has already been littered with warnings for disruptive editing. This is clearly a static IP.

Refer to here, here, here and here. TarnishedPath^talk 05:00, 1 November 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.

46.31.118.92 - block evasion and disruptive behaviour

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

46.31.118.92/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of the /21 range of this IP was blocked for sockpuppetry. The IP currently editing is no doubt the same person. Note their similar edit summaries, both refusing to add citations for their additions, instead telling others to "add the citation needed template" [320] [321]. In other words, this is just WP:BLOCKEVASION. Can this IP please be added to the block list? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 months. If they come back from a different IP, let us know and we can look at a separate rangeblock. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Gotcha, thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994 is using source for Original Research and is frantically edit warring

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

---

User in question: User:Hawkers994

I edited this page Habr Awal and Awdal and removed this section: "The Habr Awal also partially inhabit the neighbouring region of Awdal, namely in eastern Lughaya"

The reason why I removed this content was because when I read the source provided, it was a clear case of WP:OR.

The source that the user used states this: "The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts ; there , Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater presence in recent years." To provide some context, nomadic pastoralists trade outside of their respective regions in this part of the world which is very different than being a recognisable demographic. I then created a discussion in the talk page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Habr_Awal.

I explained to the user that the source does not really reflect the content and asked if they had more than one source. They then proceeded to keep editing using the same source. They violated WP:3RR whilst I was reversing back to the original edit before the dispute. I then sent them messages urging restraint until we get a 3rd party to possibly look into it. The user did not provide more than one source which was being used as OR and I explained to them that the source is not the problem but the violation of WP:OR. They kept accusing me of not accepting the source when I made it clear on more than one occasion that the problem isnt the source but the content that it is being used to convey. They continued frantically editing without any concensus being established. I mentioned clearly that I was ready to clear the discussion but they keep edit warring.

One source which is being used to establish demographics to offset the standard number of sources used explaining the exclusine demographics of a region requires Per WP:Exceptional, WP: Extraordinary and WP:Ecree. Which is why I then asked the user to provide more than one source to irrevocably establish the content being established, but they have not complied.

The user has not provided any content in the talk page except for saying that removal of sourced content is a violation which I feel is an obvious deflection to obfuscate the discussion.

Having said that, I am ready to go back to how it was before or a 3rd opinion being established.

As you can see in this talk page, the discussion has become circular because the user is adamant on using the same source to use content which is not reflected in anyway. MustafaO (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:MustafaO i have issued you a 3RR first in your talk page to avoid complication but you disregarded as evident from your talk page [322] you are deleting sourced content which clearly shows the presence and inhibitions of certain clans in the region due to your biased attitude [323] the exact same content is on the Awdal page same Author, same book used by many other ediors. I have explained on both talk pages yet you refused to stop editing with sourced content at hand [324] you do not get to pick and choose which sources suit you to your liking. Yet you are negotiating saying to leave it on one page and delete the other [325] even though the same content just because it doesn’t suite to your liking, that’s not how Wikipedia works.

User:Hawkers994

This is where the issue diverges. We are not discussing the same issue. In the first comment, I clearly reiterated from previous discussions, the source is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with using it, however it does not mention what you say its mentioning. That's the first point. Your content is WP:OR. This is what you are not really appreciating. If the issue is clear then why not bring corroborative sources to establish it which you chose not to do? This is why I believe we need a 3rd opinion and possibly an administrator to weigh in. Grazing rights and trade does not equal demographics. That's what you are using the source for.

MustafaO (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You are still removing sources from the page while this discussion just began which is an evasive tactic, the source clearly states large presence of communities as in habitation in the region which you are avoiding due to biased and not fitting to you liking Hawkers994 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994

Please do not assume my intentions and let us keep this respectful. You say the source "clearly states large presence of communities". Here is the source you provided: [[326]].

Could you show where in this source it states "large presence" or anything close to what you used it for?

This is what you wrote in the article: "The Habr Awal also partially inhabit the neighbouring region of Awdal." But the aforementioned source does not say what you are saying. Could you provide where it says "large presence"? Clear case of WP:OR.

MustafaO (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

you are even denying the source book itself on page 9 “Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights. The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts; there, Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater presence” [327] why are you denying this source and authour even though its used by many editors on wikipedia at the actual Awdal page when its conveniently mentioning the community you are promoting. Hawkers994 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994

Could you provide a link to the text? When it is typed in the search bar, it doesn't come up which is quite strange. Could you provide an actual link to this source? Again even if we assume it, that's clearly original research because of two reasons:

1st reason: The first section you are quoting: "Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights." Is not connected to this: "The second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast."

Thats a new paragraph and the two are not connected. The subject matter is two completely different issues that you've amalgamated.

2nd reason: Your original edit to the article was in the demographics section, the quote you are providing does not speak about demographics. It speaks about an area of interest for a particular community for trade and grazing.

My argument: The issue is not the source. It is using it to say what it doesn't say. If this is an issue, can you bring corroborative evidence? It shouldn't be difficult if as you say it is clear. Especially when this one is OR.

MustafaO (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

you are deleting sourced content without even checking the book on the source itself which is a violation, as states in my replies previously is on page 9 as you are going around in circles [328] Denying that a certain community lives in a region just because it doesn’t fit to your liking when you cannot refute it Hawkers994 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:Hawkers994, maybe the content can be worded better? It shouldn't be put in the demographics section because as I have shown clearly here, the quote you're providing from this dead link, (if we even assume it, as nothing comes up when you click in the search bar), does NOT state what you state.

Possible solution, how about you reword it to match the source you state? If you agree, then I can reword it and add it to another section within the article. The content you wrote is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

To put it simply, saying a community trades and pastoralists use public land for grazing in area A does NOT mean they own area A or inhabit it permanently or are native.

MustafaO (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Demographics section is exactly where it needs to be as it also shows other clans such the isse, The particular clan on the source inhibit the region clearly as stated on the source meaning they settle there and have settlements. The actual source agrees with this rewording to fit in with your liking is not Wikipedia policy. Hawkers994 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The only problem with that is, your content doesn't reflect the source and is OR.

Mabe if I could ask you, could you provide the direct link to the source, as when I typed in keywords noted in your quote it doesn't come up.

Having said that, the quote you did provide is not speaking about a settled population. It is speaking about grazing and trade. To say otherwise is exactly OR.

MustafaO (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The source that I have added states exactly what the article states which is what I have been saying throughout this discussion, in your attempt to cloud the source u said to move it from demographics then u said leave it on one article and delete it from the other, you seem to be really trying to fit the scenario to your own personal view which is against Wikipedia rules Hawkers994 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring. By my count both of you have made more than 20 reverts of this in the last 10 hours or so. You have posted edit warring notices on each other's talk pages so you are both aware of WP:3RR. This is a content dispute but neither of you has attempted to discuss this on the article's talk page. This material does not seem to qualify for a 3RR exception. Both editors should be blocked for egregious 3RR violation. Meters (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And ongoing edit warring... up to about 25 reverts each now. Meters (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is your source: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Studies_on_Governance_Awdal_region.html?id=gny1xwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

When I click on it and type in the search button. I cannot find the quote. Can you send the direct link. This is the 3rd time I made this request. Is there something that you are hiding? If not, please share the direct link so we can look in the source.

I made the request to you previously so that you could come to some kind of an arrangement but you seem adamant on using Original research because the source doesn't claim what you say it does.

MustafaO (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Meters above, I've given both MustafaO and Hawkers994 24 hour blocks for edit warring. I suggest you use this time to take a step back and go to the talk page to resolve this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:RickinBaltimore Here is the exact link from page 9 which User:MustafaO denied and lied about which quotes that “A third clan with a presence in Awdal is the Isaaq, particularly the Haber-Awal sub-clan.” which goes on to further to say “the Isaaq are playing a growing role in two areas of Awdal. One is the agricultural” both quotes from the same source at page 9 [329] [330] different sub clans are present and inhabit this region isse/isaaq and shall be added on the Awdal page without any biased views. Hawkers994 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994

The sources you provided here are both dead links. User:RickinBaltimore, please have a look at what they provided. The search bar doesn't even come up with any results.

Also even if we were to assume in good faith. It is a case of original research because the the content that the user is writing isnt what the supposed source says. You said the source says that a particular community has grazing and trade interests. How does that then translate to having a clear huge presence in the demographic? Clear WP:OR

MustafaO (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

An absolute lie, first link is the actual book source [331] which even in the search bar can be searched “Haber-awal” which will bring you directly to the exact page quote [332] Hawkers994 (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the exact reason why its original research. Why dont you use the exact wording. The border area between the Dilla and Gabiley districts is what you could have written but you didnt write that. You mentioned they had a huge presence in the Lughaya district although the source you quote says (according to you) that the the community has an interest for grazing and trade. That is OR. If you want to quote exactly what the text supposedly says then there is no issue. But your source doesn't reflect the content you were frantically and forcibly adding.

MustafaO (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly as in Dilla too which also in Awdal, and also lughaya, it is why it adds “FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 9

.. Haber - Awal has been in conflict with the Gadabuursi over land rights . The

second area of Isaaq concern in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts; there, Isaaq traders and pastoralists have established a greater

presence” different subclans live and inhabit this Region and are present as stated on the source which why it shall be added on. Hawkers994 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, MustafaO's concern is that the claims being added mention "Lughaya" but the source doesn't say "Lughaya". Is that correct? Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Have asked for pages to be fully protected. Editwar still ongoing with what many may see as puppets involved now. Moxy- 00:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The source states that a particular community has an interest in Lughaya for trade and grazing. The user wants this to mean thay said community make up part of the inhabitants and my contention is that the source doesn't state that. Nomadic communities have always travelled to graze in public land but that doesn't mean its inhabitable which is what the user is trying to explicity state. I asked for better sources, the user cant get any. I explained that if it's contentious then bring corroborative evidence. This is what they are refusing. The issue is that they want to divert from what even the user says the source states.

MustafaO (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Many communities live in this region what this user is denying is a certain community to have presence and inhibit in this region despite the sources provided, question is why is he agains a certain community to be added or mentioned to this region Hawkers994 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, it says between Dilla and Gabiley. Is Gabiley part of Awdal? It isn't which again shows you that you are making it say what you want it to say. Dispite about the border area between districts doesn't mean one is a huge and clear inhabitant like you wrote in the article. That is original research. When you initially edited it, you did not conform with what you even say the source states.

As for the Lughaya district, same issue. It does not say what you wrote. A particular community having an interest in trade and grazing in a certain locality doesn't mean that locality belongs to them or that they constitute an inhabitant demographic. Why dont you bring corroborative sources? Add one or two more sources to show. But the reason why you dont want to do that is because it doesn’t exist.

By you adding what you want despite the source not conforming to your desired content shows you dont feel any responsibility towards the community in my views.

MustafaO (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Many communities live in this region what this user is denying is a certain community to have presence and inhibit in this region despite the sources provided, question is why is he agains a certain community to be added or mentioned to this region When sources clearly staye “A third clan with a presence in Awdal is the Isaaq, particularly the Haber-Awal sub-clan.” Hawkers994 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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 against User:WWGB

My fellow editor WWGB has been repeatedly been vandalized by IPs over the last couple of months. Here from one IP: [333][334][335]. Another: [336] [337]. And another: [338][339][340]. It got to the point where my own talk page was attacked by the IP after I reverted the vandalism on their talk page: [341][342][343].

I don't want to take action on this without WWGB's permission... but holy expletive this is getting out of hand. I know this is technically vandalism, but it's gotten to such a point I think an ANI discussion might be necessary. Maybe an IP range block? It is obviously the same person, but different IP addresses. Are they IP hopping? If so, it's definitely block evasion. I'd like to hear others' thoughts. (I will notify WWGB on just a second).

The most recent IP also attacked me personally. See [344]. This has gone waaaay too far. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• The IP also edited my report to ANI: [345]. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• If you want your user talk page semi-protected for a while, WWGB, say the word. It seems warranted, and without too much in the way of negative consequences from a quick perusal of its edit history. You've apparently had just two people without accounts come by in the past year. Is keeping the good-faith one from Greece worth the hassle of the other one from the United States? Your decision. Uncle G (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be a good course of action —- but like you said, it’s up to WWGB. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know why this IP vandal is so upset. I must have reverted him previously but I don't remember. He comes out at random times and defaces my talk page, while addrerssing his phallic fixation.

@Uncle G: I think semi-protection of my talk page is a good idea. I seldom have IPs leaving (useful) comments there.

Thank you both for your assistance. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I semi-protected User talk:WWGB for three months. Any future similar attacks should result in an immediate and lengthy block of the IP or account. Feel free to notify me if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully we won’t be seeing any more of that IP any time soon. Professor Penguino (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Only thing left to do here is to remove the talk page access of IP 174.203.242.80, due to the attacks they've been posting on their talk page, especially after being blocked (diff). — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Would an IP range block be in order? I am pretty certain they are hopping between IPs; it's only a matter of time before they'll be able to evade this most recent block. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:46.134.62.195 requests update of a protected article with potential connection to LTA Wikinger

An IP user, @46.134.62.195, recently contacted me on my talk page to ask me to update the data on Code2000 based on [346]. After updating it, looking at the talk page made me realize the history of long-term abuse of this page by WP:LTA/Wikinger regarding this page, and especially their impersonation of James Kass, one alleged account of which (User:CodeJames) the IP user was referring to. The IP furthermore appears to be familiar with Wikinger, referring to them by their username w:de:user:Wikinger08 which isn't mentioned on the LTA page. I've reverted my update. Are my suspicions reasonable, and what should be done next? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

IP has been blocked, and I blocked a couple of sleeper accounts as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again! I noticed that one of the accounts you blocked was User:Openmicȣnt. Is User:Openmichunt also a sock, or is it another case of impersonation? (The latter left messages on my talk page today, which were edited by the former with the signature changed). Thank you very much again! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's a WP:DUCK if I saw one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again. When looking at the history of User talk:Openmicȣnt, I saw that he claimed in one of his edit summaries to be Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Projects. Might we have two different LTAs? (The other edit summaries were weird attacks against a so-called "Antandrus") ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

On that page, it does say that Wikinger copies Projects and vice versa. At this point it really doesn't matter since it's all the same, a LTA causing disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Unsourced" deletions

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.

---

GlasssixstringV2 has decided to edit a bunch of articles about musicians with the comment, "Removed all unsourced information". This doesn't seem to me like the appropriate way to go about improving the sourcing on articles. Could someone take another look and see if there's a reason not to revert all these changes? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty deliberate antithesis of what WP:PRESERVE recommends, a ton of it is completely benign information for which sources could immediately be located, paradoxically, making it harder to determine whether any actually objectionable information might've been removed. Remsense聊 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Examining the changes at Tommy Roe there are a few concerns. Quickly,

• Some deletions are implicitly verifiable to published material, such as the discography and the TV appearance.
• WP:FACEBOOK is allowed for WP:ABOUTSELF and is referenced in-text. Such a reference can be improved with an inline citation.
• And while it's a matter of opinion, statements like In 1986, Roe was inducted into the Georgia Music Hall of Fame, and his pioneering contribution to the genre has been recognized by the Rockabilly Hall of Fame. should be uncontroversial enough for such a famous artist to merely require a {{cn}} tag (or, a quick Google search of: "Georgia Music Hall of Fame" "tommy roe" can quickly begin the process verification for that claim).
• There are also some "See also" entries removed for no apparent reason, not even verifiability, eg List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, which is verified elsewhere in the article, and The History of Rock & Roll for which an explanation should have been provided for removal. So the edit summary is either not accurate, or a mistake was made in confirming verification. It's great to improve "See also" sections, sometimes that includes removing links, but it's clear this is part of the broader removal and inaccurate to some degree.

I haven't examined other removals here to see if they are verified by sources in the article, nor have I examined any other articles, but there is a reasonable overshoot in removal of information here. Note that there are many ways to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM beyond simply bulk removing information. —siroχo 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above and with @Remsense. These changes should be reverted absent a specific reason why the content should be removed. A good reason, for example, would be negative unsourced content on BLP. The fact of being unsourced isn't enough by itself. Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

GlasssixstringV2's first account, User:Glasssixstring, created the article Robin Shaw. The Shaw article was tagged for notability and sourcing on October 15 and GlasssixtringV2 objected to the notability tag being added. It was only after the notability tag was restored to the Shaw article that they began systematically stripping content from the articles of other musical artists. Prior to that, they had only tagged a small handful of articles with notability tags, leaving the content in situ. This looks rather WP:POINTY. This all seems very familiar to me...-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked GlasssixstringV2 as a suspected sock: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red plosion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I will point out that it is perfectly acceptable, as stated at WP:BURDEN, to remove unsourced claims. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Edward-Woodrow, In a vacuum, absolutely. But I'm sure everyone understands how WP:PROVEIT and WP:PRESERVE work together to make a better encyclopedia. Remsense聊 21:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    • There is also an entire paragraph at WP:BURDEN that explains how and why alternative methods may be preferable to outright blanking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 2 November 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.

Problem edits by Philomathes2357

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.

---

Editor Philomathes2357 has been making some inappropriate edits at Scott Ritter. Problems include edit warring in general, and making edits claiming to be justified by talk page consensus despite talk page consensus on both Talk:Scott Ritter and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard being against the edits and confirming that Polygraph.info is a reliable source.

Listing the most recent.

• Edit warring [347][348][349]
• Joining an edit war at Voice of America and adding in a contentious and derogatory label which they used to justify one of the edits in the edit war above.[350] The editor pushing this contentious label they tried to revert to also looks suspicious.[351]
• Edit that claimed talk page consensus when consensus was against the edit. [352]

More things also give me reason to report. I have been reading backwards after seeing Slatersteven's comments about WP:TIMESINK and WP:NOT behavior by Philomathes2357. Philomathes2357 is trying to push a very strident anti-USA and anti-western POV. I have read the previous reports proving that Philomathes2357 organizes with other editors in off-wikipedia locations and I think that Philomathes2357's claims of being trolled are false. I think that Philomathes2357 and some of their friends are playing a WP:Tag team operation with a Good cop, bad cop arrangement. Philomathes2357 engages in bad behavior or bad edits. If Philomathes2357 is challenged, someone else from Philomathes's team comes in to post over the top attacks on Philomathes2357, then Philomathes2357's friends use that as a reason to tell everyone that Philomathes2357 is a victim and to ignore Philomathes2357's problem conduct. USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have seen problems with Philomathes before [353] and recently [354]

If Philomathes2357 is challenged, someone else from Philomathes's team comes in to post over the top attacks on Philomathes2357, then Philomathes2357's friends use that as a reason to tell everyone that Philomathes2357 is a victim and to ignore Philomathes2357's problem conduct. I thought this but Softlem (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This was what happened in the thread earlier in this page. Philomathes definitely made edits that are a problem but comments were made like M.Bitton's "That may be so and you're free to file a ANI report if you want, but this one is about them being personally attacked, so let's not reward the IP's unacceptable behaviour."[355] Looking at past reports it seems like every time Philomathes2357 is being reported, there's a mysteriously welltimed over the top attacker and then the discussion shifts to "don't reward the troll" and ignoring what Philomathes2357 did to start it all and waste everyone's time in the first place. USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at past reports it seems like every time Philomathes2357 is being reported I agree and thought that when it hppened but WP:Verifiability

Philomathes definitely made edits that are a problem Agree Softlem (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This report is the real WP:TIMESINK. I've been engaged in several very interesting discussions, at Scott Ritter, Voice of America, the NPOV page, and elsewhere. These discussions have, at times, become fairly detailed and might come across as a bit esoteric to some users. Some users may be unable to fully follow certain parts of the discussion, which understandably leads to frustration. However, the discussions have been almost exclusively good-faith and useful, and have found many willing and active participants.

None of the diffs posted here contain an edit war, as I've never done more than one revert on the pages in question - usually accompanied by a collegial note and an invitation for further discussion. The edit linked at "81" was made after hearing from only two editors, one of whom was the author of the passage I removed, and both of them agreed with me - so at the time, there was consensus, and the edit was non-controversial.

I'm open to constructive feedback, but "shut up and stop being a timesink" isn't constructive, nor is accusing me of edit warring when I'm not.

I think a boomerang is in order here for this spurious report. USNavelObservatory has an inappropriate fixation on me. I notice that their account was created in early October, which was when I was making noise about Vizorblaze, the LTA who's been harassing me for nearly a year. Note that among USNavelObservatory's first edits were edits to the Cliven Bundy page (see here), a page way off the beaten path, and one of the venues at which Vizorblaze harangued me in the past.

Now, after a month of inactivity, this purportedly brand-new user is back to engage in the same concern trolling, idiosyncratic repetition of my full username, and false accusations of coordination of innumerable Vizorblaze-generated reports in the past. What sort of "new user" singles out much more experienced users and takes them to ANI after minimal interaction? Most brand-new users don't even know what ANI is, and have nowhere near enough policy knowledge to be taking editors with years of experience to ANI. Not sure if this is another LTA sock or not, but this pattern is really getting tiresome.

And anyone else who wants to accuse me of tag-teaming better either retract their statements or start naming names and providing us with some damn good evidence, as we know that spurious accusations of bad faith are against policy. Enough is enough. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

An inappropriate fixation on you? I didn't even know who you were until I got an edit conflict trying to reply at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard while trying to comment about Know Your Meme as a source. [356]

I didn't know what WP:ANI was before Slatersteven pointed me to it. [357]

How do you want to be called? If you don't like people using your full user name, tell us what you'd like to be called.

I grew up in Boise, so the Bundy situation interests me, I was born in St. Luke's. I didn't edit for a couple weeks because I had to fly home and visit my parents there after my mom broke her hip.

My position is the same as that of Slatersteven and Softlem and many other people. Your conduct isn't acceptable. USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, User talk:Just here for the facts is just weird. They started editing October 31 starting on this exact notice board and then started making some strange edits at Talk:Scott Ritter. I can't tell if this account just has a weird sense if humor or is actively trying to make comments that are counterproductively over the top. USNavelObservatory (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

They did have a back and forth going with P. on Scott Ritter USNavelObservatory (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also they posted a welcome page notice to themself just like P. has added a bunch of welcome and toolbox templates to themself. [358][359] USNavelObservatory (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. Some of their edits suggest the latter explanation. Very possible that "Just here for the facts" is an SPA.

As for your report, I should cut you some slack since you're new. For context, an LTA has been making similar reports for almost a year, using very similar language, so hopefully you'll forgive my initial suspicion. However, I will assume that you are a new user who's trying to do the right thing.

Check out the policies on edit warring, particularly the 3RR. Note that the simple act of reverting another editor does not meet the threshold of "edit warring". As you can see here, I have only made 2 reverts to the Scott Ritter page, ever. In a separate edit, I undid one of those two reversions and acknowledged to the reverting editor that I had made an error. So nothing there remotely approaches an edit war.

On that same page, you have reverted three of my edits in the past 2 days, none of which I've re-reverted. So you are actually closer to edit-warring than I am - but you are still not over the line. There's nothing here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." You added yourself to the warring by Ureal at Voice of America: Revision history after Ureal was warned [360] USNavelObservatory (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea about Ureal's interactions with other users. I simply noticed that the page had been changed since my last visit, and objected to the change, so I changed it back. When I was reverted, I followed the proper channel by opening a talk page discussion.

You've now reverted edits 4 times on Scott Ritter, including 3 times in the past 24 hours, which violates 3RR. You also added content, which I removed, and then reinstated the content saying "there's no consensus" - which inverts the concept of consensus. You missed the fact that there is also no consensus to add the content you added. The fact that I removed the content is proof that consensus does not exist, but you reinstated the content anyway, instead of doing the proper thing, which would be to discuss your proposed revisions on the talk page. That's not the end of the world, and normally I wouldn't even mention it. But, given that you've started an ANI thread over my alleged "edit warring", it's not a good look for you to be simultaneously engaging in objectively more severe forms of edit warring.

I'm sorry you feel frustrated by me, @USNavelObservatory. I've definitely done some things that were not ideal in the past, but this here is not one of them. I encourage you to spend more time getting to know your way around Wikipedia, and I encourage you to spend less time worrying about other editors. I see you just created yet another ANI thread, which was promptly closed. Perhaps you should refrain from criticizing other users' behavior so aggressively until you're more familiar with the platform. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I started the report because someone put an edit to this page that made an image taking up half the page of two houseflies having sex. It was fucked up vandalism. I was told by Slatersteven that I had to file the report here if I saw something that wasn't right so I did it. USNavelObservatory (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me amend that well-intentioned advice from Slatersteven with some advice of my own. ANI is primarily for dispute resolution. There is a separate noticeboard for reporting vandalism. Coming to ANI to resolve a dispute should be a last resort, when all other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted. For instance, you could have brought up your concern that I was "edit warring" on my talk page - not with a generic notice, but with a personal message. I would have gladly chatted there. Only upon repeated failed good-faith attempts to resolve a dispute should it be escalated to ANI. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I already notified you there. [361] You didn't respond. Slatersteven and M.Britton said a NEW ANI had to be made here. USNavelObservatory (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand Philomathes2357's edit has become increasingly problematic, on the other hand USNavelObservatory is likely the sock of a LTA with an axe to grind with Philo... This is a gift horse we should certainly be looking in the mouth of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"on the other hand USNavelObservatory is likely the sock of a LTA with an axe to grind with Philo" I literally had no idea who P. even was until I saw an edit conflict. I don't know or care except that I saw someone with a behavior problem. USNavelObservatory (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In what way do you find my edits "problematic"? I know you disagree with my view that academic humanistic sources differ epistemologically from academic disciplines that use the scientific method. But nothing in that discussion, at the NPOV page, has risen to the level of "problematic". Perhaps you think my comments are sometimes too long and detailed on article talk pages, but that's just the way it is - sometimes what needs to be said takes a paragraph or two, other times a sentence or two, especially with other editors make comments to me that take much longer to unpack than they do to assert (similar to Brandolini's law). If you feel that I've been overly flippant or rude to you in any way in our discussions, please bring my specific problematic or offensive remarks to my attention. If I've crossed a line, or hurt your feelings, I will make amends. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The OP has been indeffed. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 6 November 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.

Uncivil personal attack by IP 87.196.74.126 at Talk:Spanish Empire

Recent editing at Talk:Spanish Empire#Inaccurate Map (October 2023) has evidenced uncivil behaviour and personal attacks, enough for me to issue a general warning that such behaviour should cease (here). Immediately after, an IP made three edits that IMO fall to being a personal attack against another - [362], [363] & [364]. The nature of the edits indicate a long-term editor that would probably meet the definition of being a sock - quite possibly of a banned editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31h for disruptive editing. Clearly not here to contribute productively. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is transparently Roqui15. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15. TompaDompa (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ingenuity, this edit by IP 87.196.80.123 would appear to be the same editor evidencing much the same behaviour first reported here. I believe it is appropriate for me to delete their post in these circumstances and will do so. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Promo editor posting the same article with different names

Editor user:ChoudharySamrat has posted Icaria (fest) article under different names that have been G11'd, twice in a row. This one is at Afd. The editor has been paid to update ICFAI University, Tripura article. A coi report has been made, but editor only seems to be here to promote this event now. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

sorry my intention is to provide only neutral point of view the previous I myself proposed for deletion if you check please ChoudharySamrat (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why didn't you submit a draft and go through the AFC process that you clearly know how to go through? DarmaniLink (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've deleted Icaria (fest) and salted all three known names (Icaria (fest), Icaria (event), and ICARIA (event)), as well as blocked ChoudharySamrat as not being here to create an encyclopedia (recreating the same deleted promotional article several times under different names is extremely disruptive.) Bishonen | tålk 18:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC).

Please note that I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChoudharySamrat as I believe them to be editing through another account now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Nationality-based attack by Rosenborg BK Fan

Rosenborg BK Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said in this series of edits: I really don't like to have anything to do with German users on any Wikipedia, let alone on the English one. Since we previously had discussions on Talk:Germans and also because I state my nationality on my user's page, they know pretty well that I'm German. My complaints and their reaction on their talk page can be seen here. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone get some Tippex, we need to remove some NPA's. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit: Seems like he blanked the original notice, I added another one, if I need to remove it I will. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Rosenborg BK Fan is blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's because I chose this specifically, if you take a look at the log. And it is indeed not quite surprising at all, considering how I was treated there (I and other users that I know). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Several comments. First, AstatineEnjoyer, you should not have reinstated the ANI notice (I've undone your edit). Second, Rosenborg BK Fan requested an indefinite block at de.wiki. Third, I don't see any personal attacks that warrant deletion. Finally, in glancing at the exchange between Rsk6400 and Rosenborg, the only thing that I see that is concerning is the quoted attack against all Germans.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. Indeed, all of your points with one exception are correct. I would like to stress that I did not mean a personal attack on all Germans, not even on all German Wikipedia users (i.e. I haven't mentioned the word 'all' there, please take that into consideration), but rather specifically what I previously wrote. And that was not an ethnic/nationality-based attack at all. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosenborg BK Fan: I just skimmed your lengthy comments at Talk:Icelanders, and they are simply unacceptable. Whether they are a rant against de.wiki, comments about German users (that can be construed as attacks), or attacks against Rsk6400 specifically, none of it is germane to a content dispute. So, consider this a warning that if you repeat such behavior in the future, you risk being blocked (involuntarily).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. We want only germane German attacks. EEng 18:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I thought you said Romaine for a second and almost spit air. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Bbb23, that's all what I wanted. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yuck. I hate Romaine. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: RBKF was previously blocked 48h earlier in the year based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Help with bigotry & xenophobia. regarding Romanians and Romanis (with a drop of the G-slur), and this talk message; this is hardly a new issue and they had been warned to cease nationalistic attacks earlier this year. Nate • (chatter) 20:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is absolutely final warning before a long vacation territory here. It's inappropriate and utterly unacceptable. Star Mississippi 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you MrSchimpf. Rosenborg BK Fan, I have a simple question for you and I would like a straightforward answer. Do you agree (OK, so it's actually a leading question, to make it easy for you) that comments like "I've had with you and your kind" are always unacceptable in a collaborative forum? You could do yourself a huge favor by explaining why "your kind" is so problematic; that might certainly put some of us at ease. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That was a misunderstanding as I previously explained, but I am not going to further talk about it... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosenborg BK Fan: Please provide a diff for your previous explanation. Also, it would be helpful if you responded to Drmies's question.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given the previous block for similar behaviour I don't think a mere warning at this point is appropriate. WaggersTALK 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'm torn a bit. Yes, I agree that right now User:Rosenborg BK Fan does not look like a net positive for the project. The easy slippage between "you Germans" and "you editors at the German Wikipedia" is just too...well, it's just dumb. The "you and your kind" comment corresponds with that--the problem isn't "a misunderstanding": 'no one should talk in terms of "your kind". That they fail to grasp that and refuse to explain is really reason enough to block them from editing a collaborative project. On the other hand, Bbb23 warned them in no uncertain terms, and maybe that's enough for now--plus handing out a one-week block or whatever right now is punitive and serves no purpose, IMO. If there is no consensus for an indefinite block, then next time Rosenborg Fan makes a comment that in any way seems to generalize or stereotype other editors, I will be happy to block them indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  This reminds me a bit of the situation with Laurel Lodged, where each individual something-phobic comment was credibly a miscommunication, but it strained credulity to believe that all of them were, and there was a marked absence of the "Oh shit I didn't mean that" comments that one would expect in a legitimate misunderstanding. My reading from the February thread, per HJ Mitchell's comment and Kinu's close, is that Rosenborg should already be understood as on their last chance, and so here I tend toward an indef. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Having just skimmed this thread and refreshed my memory from February, I'm inclined to agree. Do you want to drop the hammer, @Tamzin, or do you want me to do it when I can get to a proper keyboard in a couple of hours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indeffed per the consensus here. If they change their tune, then ROPE might apply. GiantSnowman 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Going by Yamla saying their OUTRS response was 'offensively bad' (I really hope in just being poorly-written and not in what I fear it actually was), and RBKF calling the block 'unbiased, civil, and polite', along with their refusal to answer the simple yes/no inquiry from Drmies, it was the right thing to do. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS, not OTRS. :) Mostly, it was just a rant about how we are all authoritarians, and references to... German authoritarianism. Also, apparently nobody has a nice vocabulary and we are all doomed. Ah well. --Yamla (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And TPA revoked for using their talk page to continue ranting about admins being authoritarians. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

non-admin comment As the editor who started this thread I just want to say "thank you" to all admins - among other things, for keeping calm when confronted with such language. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a Commons issue, but they've gone through and asked for G7 on all their images (none are in en.wiki filespace), many already PD'ed; are they allowed to do so? Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons blocked them for three days and they left yet another manifesto about their images being 'too poor' to be kept (they're in articles now and haven't been removed so...no). Nate • (chatter) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As an amateur photographer, I'd like to offer that their images are more than O.K. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, except the one where the background is too bright. Happens to us all. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, UTRS appeal #80669 offers further indication of user's unsuitability for this project.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel

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 this is the right place to do this, but I wanted to report what appears to be a violation of the WP:DISRUPTIVE rule in the "Israel" article. The editor marked this change (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=1183621324&oldid=1183466533) as a "minor edit" and added an edit summary that this was done to "correct" the article, but in fact the editor inserted controversial text, according to which Israel is accused of genocide and apartheid against the Palestinians. One gets the impression that this edit was marked as minor only to mask the inclusion of content that would not easily gain consensus, especially when the RFC on whether to add the apartheid claim at the top of the entry is underway at this very moment. Can someone please check this? Is there anything to do about this? Eladkarmel (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Marking a change like that as minor is clearly not acceptable, but I think opening a discussion here at ANI is premature. Kablammo isn't edit-warring; the edit was reverted and has not been reinstated. I would suggest raising this at Talk:Israel, or perhaps at User talk:Kablammo. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel: You've made an error in the diff navigation and selected a diff bracket with 5 intermediate edits. Kablammo made a single, tiny change that was indeed minor, and they are blameless of the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was wrong. A very embarrassing mistake. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:09, 5 November 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 in Talk:Death of Armita Geravand

An IP is cursing there. Parham wiki (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have identified the user in question as 178.131.168.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and have notified the most recent IP from that range. They have not edited since October 30, but the discussion where they used personal attacks, Talk:Death_of_Armita_Geravand#Information_about_Mahsa_Amini_is_irrelevant, has also received participation from 133.106.47.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Rkieferbaum (talk · contribs) on the opposing side, up to 01:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

They're the reason the article had to be protected. They're quiet now, hopefully they're done. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t thing it’s a one off. Same IP also made personal attacks on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_veiling_practices_by_country&action=history (the one calling another user biased feminist and basically calling them a know-nothing). I think this user needs a long ban to preclude further WP:NOTHERE behavior. Borgenland (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Blaxoul, part 2

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

On 16 June 2023, Blaxoul was blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment", which was against me, as seen in the ANI thread at that time (where it's also shown that they accused a historian for being "biased" due to simply being of Armenian stock). After that, we didn't communicate even once. However, today they randomly made yet another attack towards me; "Why are you so obsessed with editing articles about turks? I don't think you're a volunteer who's just "contributing" to Wikipedia. Something fishy is happening, but I will never know.".

This user has been here since 2020, making 59 edits since then. As you can see here [365], the majority of these few edits have been related to nothing but trouble. I think it's safe to say they're WP:NOTHERE, I fail how to see they're a networth to this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Like there's no way you are a single person. You are 7/24 here. I am just checking your edit history and there's nothing wrong with that. Blaxoul (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There are so many people who got banned for simply disagreeing with you. Am I the next? Blaxoul (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a Russian-Armenian historian named Arakelova who says Iranian Azerbaijan has only 6-6.5 million Azerbaijani turks and calling that a bias is wrong? There are countless examples of this. Blaxoul (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Blaxoul as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need angry ethnonationalists who create no new content. Like there's no way you are a single person. You are 7/24 here. is a ridiculous, evidence free accusation of sockpuppetry, as can be seen by a glance at HistoryofIran's time card, which shows when this editor sleeps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, saying someone is on WP 7 hours out of 24 isn't that much of an accusation ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"Is" or "Isn't", Gråbergs Gråa Sång? There have been many times when I haven't edited Wikipedia for quite a few hours when I was not actually sleeping. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But, like me, there have also been times when you were on WP 7 hours in a 24 hour period, right? And to clarify, I actually read Blaxoul's "7/24" to mean "24 hours a day, 7 days a week." Which obviously is incorrect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What is this 'sleep' thing referred to? Seriously though, some of the less fortunate amongst us have (excuse the language, but when you know, you know...) utterly fucked-up sleep patterns. Or, in my case, at its worst, nothing that could reasonably be described as a pattern at all. It's probably only the consistency with which my increasing irritability shows through that convinces people that its all me, and not a GrumpGPT simulacrum set to post at random. Chronic insomnia shouldn't be taken as evidence of sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The timecard on XTools is a long-term record of an account's editing history, not only the last week or month. This may be clearer if you look at the numbers on the right side of the chart, or the ones that pop up when you hover over / mouseover the circles on the chart. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my timecard doesn't represent the waking hours of the majority of my timezone due to the non-normal hours that I work. So I tend to be about 12 hours off the cycle of most people over here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and vandalism

More than 90% of the contributions of the user User:Pedantic Aristotle are related to the politician Javier Milei. This is clearly an single-purpose account. But it's not just that, this user is also resorting to vandalism, as he has tried to extremely and massively delete information with sources from Javier Milei article. It's not the first time he's done it. He has also attempted to massively erase information with sources from the La Libertad Avanza article, a political coalition to which Javier Milei belongs. I show some examples of mass deletion of information with sources that this user has carried out:

[366]

[367]

[368]

[369]

[370]

[371]

[372] Uniru288 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uniru288: Would you please provide a link to the talk page discussion where you tried to work with Pedantic Aristotle on this dispute? Also, would you please provide a link to the warnings you left them regarding what you believe is vandalism? Also, would you please provide a link to the edit where you notified them that you started a discussion here? Also, would you please provide a link to the report that was just filed against you at the edit warring noticeboard regarding your behavior at Renewal Front, where you've done at least five reverts in a little more than 16 hours? Also, would you please provide a link to your block log that shows that you've already been blocked twice for edit warring? City of Silver 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I became aware of this discussion because Uniru288 made an identical comment at my talk page, presumably because I have previously blocked both Pedantic Aristotle and Uniru288 for edit warring. Outside of one comment to their own talk page and two edits to my own, Uniru288 has only ever made a single edit to a talk page yet is quick to revert with little or no explanation. I've blocked Uniru288 twice for edit warring previously and there is an open discussion at WP:ANEW (Permalink), and the only reason I haven't acted on that report is because I don't want to give the appearance that I'm consistently "picking on" them by being the same administrator blocking them yet again, but there has been no attempt by Uniru288 to discuss the issues that they have with Pedantic Aristotle, and I find the continued edit warring concerning, especially when combined with the absence of any attempt at discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Asking others to revert on their behalf is not helping either. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I will be the "bad guy", then. I have blocked Uniru288 for two weeks for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Cammm3ee - vandalism only account

Newly registered account, sole purpose appears to be anti-semitic vandalism. Eg [373]. WP:NOTHERE block required. WCM_email 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Troll go by bye. No ifs. No buts. Not even talk page access. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster You can probably just use WP:AIV for crap like that. Best, Seawolf35 (talk - email) 14:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I would normally use AIV but was in a rush on my way out but didn't want to leave it for Someone Else to report as Someone Else is an unreliable editor. Thanks @Canterbury Tail:. WCM_email 16:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Somebody "Notme" Else is a thoroughly reliable editor, just overworked. Narky Blert (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Xihuaa - Failure to engage with other editors' concerns

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.

---

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

Xihuaa has repeatedly created articles about individual events at Asian Para Games without providing proper independent sources. Examples include Canoeing at the 2022 Asian Para Games, Shooting at the 2022 Asian Para Games, and many others in the same mold. Multiple editors have now explained to her that these contributions fall afoul of WP:NOTINFO, most extensively by myself (see Special:PermanentLink/1182182464) and ToBeFree (Special:Diff/1181878927), but also more obliquely by other editors who have tagged her article creations with {{notability}} or nominated them for deletion. Despite these messages, which Xihuaa has read and removed from her talk page, she has continued in the same pattern of WP:FAITACCOMPLI editing (the articles linked earlier in this report were both created after I sent her talk page messages, and are only a fraction of the articles edited). In the course of discussion on her talk page, it also became clear that Xihuaa is heavily relying on translation software to edit and communicate on English Wikipedia, which, in tandem with the other concerns, raise CIR issues, whether relating to communication or competence. If she is not able to acknowledge and adjust her behavior in line with these considerations, I'm afraid that a block may be required. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rosguill. Xihuaa, please join this discussion here and explain your position. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

1- I don't understand the reason for all these negative messages. My aim was to contribute to the articles (and of course to give hope to the athletes who are interested in these games in the Asian continent). I looked up articles on the Olympics and similar events on Wikipedia. There were sports articles in it. I also looked here. They were here too. I did not create them. They were just one line leading to the main article. I thought it would be nice to complete them.

2- Is there a more important source than the official site of the games themselves? If so, tell me.

3- You told me that more resources are needed. I said I understood. There may be no more resources available at this time. The site of the games usually disappears shortly after the end of the games. The link is sold. I realized this when the Olympics were held. I used to think that these sites will remain forever. I was looking for results from the Paralympics but found it on another site. So I realized one thing. After some time, the results are archived on other sites, and sometimes they are not. Maybe a few months or a few years. I noticed that the results on the games site are gone. It was not even on Wikipedia. After a lot of searching, I found only a part of them with difficulty.

4- Currently, there are other sites where new resources can be found. But it takes a lot of time. I did my best for the articles. I spent several hours daily over a week. Not only did I get no thanks, only a few warning messages to discourage me.

5- Here you say why I deleted the message. Because I read it and understood it. I planned to make many more articles because even now the articles related to these games have many problems. There are many articles. There is a lot of information on the games site. But after seeing the discouraging messages, I gave up on it. It is not true that you say that I continued the behavior before the messages. I noticed that instead of thanking the user for his free time, he is not thanked here. She is questioned. I only completed the papers that were there because the competitions were over and I completed them.

6- Currently there are no other articles that I want to create. Because you did not give me positive feedback. If you look closely at my edits, you will notice that I tried to make them clean and complete. My effort was sincere and I did not upset anyone.

7- I am not feeling very well right now. I got a little sick. I am also very busy. Therefore, I will not make an article at all. All these negative messages for completing some articles made me sad.

8- You can complete the articles with the following sources. A user says that articles should be popular. Aren't the following articles famous? All of them (similar articles) exist. Many of them have only one source. In any case, I gave up on the article. Maybe a few small edits if I had time.

NPC official websites :

https://asianparalympic.org/

https://asianparalympic.org/members/ (45 countries all of them have website)

Such as: https://www.paralympic.org/jordan / https://www.paralympicindia.org.in/ and so on ...

https://www.paralympic.org/

https://www.hangzhou2022.cn/paragames/En/

https://www.paralympic.org/feature/hangzhou-2022-asian-para-games-top-moments

World para sports website such as: https://iwbf.org/event/hangzhou-2022-asian-para-games/

and many more web that are good source.

Also, many similar articles have been created by your other users. such as:

Pan American Games sports, Swimming at the Pan American Games, Swimming at the 2023 Pan American Games, Template:Pan American Games Swimming, Template:Mediterranean Games Sports, Judo at the Mediterranean Games, Template:ParalympicSports, Shooting at the Summer Paralympics, Shooting at the 2020 Summer Paralympics and more ................

also some articles from past games: Chess at the 2018 Asian Para Games, Shooting at the 2018 Asian Para Games

Template:Events at the 2018 Asian Para Games

9- Article should be a sport in the Asian Games and not in the Para Asian Games?

Go at the 2022 Asian Para Games

Go at the 2022 Asian Games

10- By the way, most of the mentioned articles were completed or created by the following users and I was just a follower. It is good to ask their opinion or ask them to add more resources.

@Achmad Rachmani: and @Hariboneagle927: and @Nyoman Juniarta: and @Vikram maingi: and @GlashaLeo: and @WikiEdits2003:Xihuaa (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Badminton, Athletics, Swimming, Table Tennis and so on ....... completed by this users.

These users created or completed the 2018 and 2022 articles. Achmad Rachmani corrected many of my mistakes. I think he can comment.

Negative messages make me very sad. I have nervous disorders and I take pills for it. Many arguments are bad for me. But I did not intend to upset others. My intention was to make the athletes happy. With this situation, I am not at all interested in editing. I have a lot to do in real life and doctors have told me not to get angry or argue too much. Solve the problem yourself. Thanks in advance.

Thank you all. Cordially yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xihuaa (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In case you wanted to read a response to your points, see WP:THERAPY, WP:OSE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG. It is further very clear from your communications thus far that your level of English is not sufficient to understand and engage with other editors’ concerns. Your use of translation software makes gibberish out of Wikipedia jargon; if you require translation software to communicate in English, you do not have sufficient skills to be contributing prose to this project and should focus on Wikipedia in a language you actually speak. All that having been said, this discussion is now moot from an administrative perspective if you are intending to stop editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia also doesn't want a complete history of medallists on an article on a specific edition of an event, as done here and [374]. Those articles are clearly just for the 2022 Asian Para Games event. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 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.

IP constantly resubmitting AfC submissions

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

This IP has been consistently resubmitting AfC submissions without changing a single thing in the draft. This has been going on since June of 2023 (Proof) and is still ongoing to this day. This IP does not listen to any requests on the drafts or their talk page. I'd recommend something be done about this, as this is starting to get annoying for AfC reviewers and unnecessarily clogs up the big backlog (well maybe not anymore). Kline • talk to me! • contribs 03:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked them from Draftspace for 3 months. BeanieFan11, I noticed that you fixed one of this IPs football player articles - I suspect there might be others that can be rescued by someone who is actually willing to add sources? Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite and Kline: Ugh! And I just began getting the time to clean up all their submissions too! Around 70% of them are notable, and we kind of worked together (along with Scorpions1325) to get the notable submissions to mainspace as the IP doesn't have access to the sources but knows most are needed articles and I do have access to the sources but don't have time to create all of the articles myself. Would there be some way to allow this user to continue creating drafts but them be put in some sort of category "Reserved AFC submissions for Scorpions1325 and BeanieFan11"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

    That would only work if the IP would work with that or any solution, but they do not communicate at all. Rather than naming editors they could add something more general like Category:NLF Drafts needing more sources. I assume this is the same as 24.209.152.112 who was doing the same before. KylieTastic (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

    If the IP's submissions were automatically placed in such a category, I think they would be fine with that rather than being blocked from doing anything at all – they actually have communicated somewhat with me in the past to inform me of their drafts, see User talk:BeanieFan11/Archive 9 (also, yes, this is 24.209.152.112 as well as 65.30.134.209 – it seems I've actually been working with this IP for nearly three years now, wow!). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I have published 5 of the IP's drafts after they were declined or redraftified since the beginning of this month alone. I wrote a message on KylieTastic's talk page, but I think BeanieFan11's solution is better. I also noticed that I no longer have my AFC permission. Oshwah, when regranting my permissions for my new account, did you forget my AFC rights? Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Scorpions1325 you are listed at WP:AFC/P so you should be fine to review KylieTastic (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  KylieTastic I got it. My preferences were off. Thanks. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, Kline, Scorpions1325, and KylieTastic: I just randomly choose seven out of the declined drafts, and found significant coverage for all seven (see the most recent moved to mainspace entries at User:BeanieFan11/IP draft tracker) – if its "too much work" for the AfC reviewers to take care of them, I definitely think the reserved category idea would work – also note that in three days, 20 of the drafts have been improved / made to demonstrate notability by me and Scorpions while just 12 remain (and I haven't even looked at most of those yet!). I think the IP should be unblocked, clearly their work has resulted in improvements to the encyclopedia and most of their submissions are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I literally also finished one the second I got this ping. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11, if they agree not to submit drafts to AfC without more than 2 basic stats links fine. They have been doing this for years over multiple IPs from at least 2021 with 65.30.134.209. I've never seen them even post to WikiProject American football or WikiProject National Football League. To me it seems like they do very little work other than a cut-paste and quick update of stats, it's you guys doing all the great work, it's you guys that result in "improvements to the encyclopedia". It's not that it's "too much work" for the AfC reviewers, it's that it is up to submitters (or other interested editors) to research and write not the reviewers. AfC is not Wikipedia:Requested articles. I don't think they would put any more effort in even if they had access to every source, they appear to only care that a basic listing exists, not a single extra thing about a player. If I was some of these players I would be pissed that nothing I had done merited a few words. Looking at old accepts in 2021 such as Jay Repko, Brian Glasgow and Scott Urch and so many more few have been improved beyond basic stats. They create stubs of probably notable American football subjects but require editors like you to write them. There are lots of similar stubs in draft (example) of notable subjects that need work, the difference is we don't get those submitted to AfC while still work in progress. KylieTastic (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  KylieTastic It is not solely I who is doing the "improvements to the encyclopedia" nor is it solely the IP – this has been a collaborative effort between us and, to be honest, the IP's done most of the work, I just quickly add sources which take little effort – it works because the IP is unable to get the sources to demonstrate notability but has the time to write the articles, whereas I have the ability to get the sources but not the time to write all the articles – the IP understands this which is why in the past they have messaged me to inform me of their drafts – and in the rare cases where online sources do exist, the IP has added them, see for example Al Wolden. I still stand by the IP and think they should be unblocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11 I'd be quite happy to unblock them if they'd show some sign that they would stop simply throwing articles back to AFC, unedited, after they've been rejected - in some cases more than once. However they've been doing this for a very long time without communicating at all (apart from a few comments on your talk page about finding some articles) and haven't shown any clue as to why they're being disruptive. When they were blocked as 24.209.152.112 earlier this year, their unblock request was "I have to get back to work on Football". Yet they simply don't understand sourcing, and haven't made any attempt to fix that problem despite literally dozens of their drafts being declined and deleted (they have over 2,000 deleted edits). I'm not sure what else we can do to help the AFC people if they simply won't change. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite The reason the IP hasn't been able to add enough sources is because for the vast majority of them – most of which are notable – the sources simply aren't online – short of creating an account or spending large amounts of money for newspaper subscriptions (neither of which the IP seems to want to do – and I don't blame them!), the IP does not have access to them and has to rely on me, as I said several times above (the few times when they could get the sources, e.g. Wolden, they added them) – and I apologize that I haven't been able to get to those drafts quick enough that it takes up a decent amount of AfC time – I left them a message, hopefully they'll see it – I just must say that it annoys the hell out of me to see a long-time editor whom I've worked with as long as I have worked at Wikipedia be blocked for creating notable articles... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11 OK, you've convinced me. Let's give it a try. I'll unblock them and leave them a note (you may also want to do so). However, if thy simply carry on sending articles back to AFC after they've been rejected, then I will have to block them again. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Hopefully the IP will finally understand – and if they can't get it now, well, I guess I'd be fine with them being re-blocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism and edit warring at Crown Jewel (2023)

Hi all, a Wikipedian by the name of Hunterguide has actively been involved in disruptive edit warring attempting to update the lede of the entry for Crown Jewel (2023) by adding information about WWE's involvement in sportswashing with their Saudi Arabian partnership.

This controversial relationship has already been called out as such on the Sportswashing and WWE in Saudi Arabia entries, and does not need to be listed in the main paragraph of the article outright.

When challenged on this, Hunterguide decided to make around 14 reverts to keeping the page as is with their edit, and continually disrupting the page, despite numerous other editors aiming to stop them, thus risking blocking or investigation under WP: Revert only when necessary.

The editor has also been using sensationalist language to highlight the relationship and explained that the "truth needs to be uncovered", despite it only being at the bottom of the Sportswashing article in a sub-section for an A - Z list ("Wrestling"), and ignoring the rule of Wikipedians are not journalists.

They have went from making minor college basketball edits last year to simply being a single-use account today aimed at plain vandalism and purposely edit warring users who challenge them, thus meaning that an administration should look at their account for the breach of the 'three reverts a day' rule.

Best, Mechanical Elephant (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ban Evasion - Trolling IP

IP 148.252.159.203 and previously 148.252.159.66 is a self admitted meatpuppet (see edsum [375] and also [376]) of banned sockpuppet MeltingDistrict, and if it isn't MeltingDistrict in the (virtual) flesh then I am a pink baboon. They have no other edits except trolling me today as I attempted to informally get this resolved with an online admin. I missed two admins but as he went quiet I decided to wait on the page protection team. For some reason the page protection request has neither been sanctioned nor declined with an IP block yet, and now the IP is trolling again. To be clear: This IP, along with 4 other sockpuppets, was involved in vote stacking an RfC that led to this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarehamOliver and then, with the accounts all banned, suddenly arrived at User talk:Gill110951 to lay into the editor, clearly demonstrating the very same behaviour that got MeltingDistrict topic banned from anything to do with Gill. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#MeltingDistrict. This is an absolutely blatant IP sock of an editor who is not allowed to edit on Wikipedia. I note that the range 148.252.159.0/24 has a few recentish edits that may be unrelated (it is the Vodafone network) so I can understand some reluctance to block the range, but would someone please provide some assistance in closing down this obvious trolling. Perhaps a very short range block in the first instance? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ETA cue trolling here to 5,4,3,2,1... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, you have some cheek coming here and declaring untrue things on me due to a paranoid mismatch you have made in your head. Regardless of your inflammatory accusations -- you know full well that I am not a blocked or banned editor, I am entitled to make edits and to not expect you to delete my talk page contributions on the grounds of your (incorrect) assumptions that I am a sockpuppet, like here when I was just trying to defend myself against your egregious allegations against me: [377]. If you recall, you already unsuccessfully reported me (the IP 148.252.159.66) to a sock puppet investigation page as a 'suspected sockpuppet': [378] but I was not blocked. The admins and editors on that page had the option of blocking me then if they thought it was warranted, and did not. Therefore, your claim that I am consequently "not allowed to edit on Wikipedia" is just plain wrong, I am not a blocked/banned sockpuppet or meatpuppet, you've just totally bizarrely decided of your own accord that I am one. Furthermore, you claim I've confessed to being a meatpuppet -- no. What I openly said was that I had originally been notified --just notified-- about the related Rfc discussion at Talk:Michael Stone (criminal) by what it has now materialised was a sock editor. I had no previous involvement and limited understanding of what had been going on, and I believed at that time that I was being asked to take a look in good faith by an editor who just wanted to give wider notification to uninvolved editors. Me getting notified as such does not make me a meatuppet, it actually makes me an innocent bystander in all of this that was dragged into it when I was unaware of the sockpuppettry, and now as a result I'm getting accussed of it myself. I've spent the whole day today encouraging you to go through the appropriate channels to report me [379], [380], [381] User talk:Materialscientist#Banned sock causing distruption as IP if you are so insistent that I am a sock, rather than just going round and not allowing me to defend myself: [382]. Yet curiously it's only now you've decided to do so instead of going to random admins giving a very misleading part-summary in the hope that they will block me where others haven't (and surprise surprise they haven't agreed to do so). And additionally you have just also been unilaterally declaring that I am a banned sock, without any mandate to make such a declaration, which really is not on.

Now -- having failed to get me blocked before -- you are instead just going round other pages making paranoid, untrue and accusatory summaries which are really making me quite angry for being totally assaulted for something I am not even guilty of, and haven't been found guilty of. You have no right to declare that I am a troll. I have never had any "vendetta against Richard Gill" -- in fact, until I followed your edits on his talk from the Michael Stone Rfc where you had argued with the now-blocked editor who had asked my for my views -- I literally did not know the guy. But as an editor I saw the himself-blocked Gill110951's misconduct and disagreed with your comments that I saw there, which were related to the now-blocked editor who had got me involved in this in the first place. So I obviously didn't "just arrive at this page as if by magic". Yet here you are making it sound like there was no reason for me to be on the Gill110951 talk page, when I -- and I've told you this like thousands of times now -- became involved in all of this because of the antics of the now-blocked editor. But what is really quite ridiculous here is that -- having failed to get others to block me -- you've been declaring that I am a sock without any mandate to do so. I've repeatedly told you, go through the usual processes if you are so insistent that the decision of others to not block me is wrong. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Beat me to it. If they come back again, we can do a rangeblock. We don't need to "prove" anything since neither IP has made a useful edit to improve the encyclopedia anyway, so at the moment they're effectively NOTHERE anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks to both of you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access

Can a mod possibly revoke talk page access?

Hi, can a mod possibly revoke talk page access at User talk:SlackerD2? This blocked user is continuing to use their talk page for disruption and personal attacks. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 20:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, done now. — Czello ^(music) 21:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And this (image to right) is why we call them admins here not mods: Imagining some of our worthies dressed like this hurts the mind's eye...though i would love to see what Bishzilla could do with Mod fashion. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The '60's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The dawning of the Age of Aquarius. It's not going so well of late but we'll get there. I have hope. Is the TPA revoked yet? That's a good start. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bishzilla probably knows about They Call Us Misfits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

How can we be Mods when, according to various blocked users, we're all actually postmodern neo-Marxists? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 11:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I was nervous reading this intense, threatening and braggadocios post. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly a death threat. Secretlondon (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I swear I've seen almost that exact same post here on Wikipedia sometime in the past few years... Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the Navy Seal copypasta. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

“Gorilla warfare” 😂😂😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

it's always the g-darm users cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh duh....thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, bless you, Lightburst. Here I am at 3 AM, laughing my backside off. Thank you for bringing that brilliant screed to our attention! (grins) Ravenswing 06:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No way they used the copypasta. It's almost enough to make me want to give them TPA back. AryKun (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Userpage/talkpage cleanup needed

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

This disruptive user has recently gone around and messed up a whole bunch of userpages and user talkpages- including my own. It wasn't until they started this whole mess that I realized they were a sock- as such, they are currently reported at both WP:AIV and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Condoritofan2012. However, I still need help with the cleanup of all the moving they've done. They've moved so much that there's likely going to be a whole bunch of history removed due to all of this. Please help clean this up ASAP. And as I type this, they are currently not blocked whatsoever, so please block the sock ASAP if that has not been done yet. Magitroopa (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done, I think, and nothing of value was lost. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Tombury89

Tombury89 (talk · contribs) - previously blocked for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs, has a talk page history littered with warnings - but is still at it. I suggest a longer block until they start understanding? GiantSnowman 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Freescott

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 already been blocked for edit warring after fewer than 2 dozen edits, this user has turned to outright harassment, blindly reverting some two dozen of my last edits for no reason other than I made them (many of which were reversions of clearly inappropriate edits).

It's obvious this is because I clearly stated my suspicion that they're a sockpuppet on my talk page. They are obviously more experienced as an editor than their edit count would indicate, based on the sophistication of their edits. Plus I called them out for the hostile way they tried to order me to stay off an article I've been keeping tabs on for a decade. The harassment, though, is beyond the pale. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Already blocked as a sock of Evlekis, which is what I suspected. Was blocked even before I could place the ANI notice on their talk page. oknazevad (talk) 21:24, 4 November 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 Wikishovel asking for money to publish our company

I have been contacted on linked in by a user called (Redacted) who is Wikishovel on Wikipedia, asking for $200 to publish our company page on Wikipedia. He claimed to be a Wikipedia administrator. The-symbiant (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, somebody is trying to scam you. What evidence do you have that the scammer is really Wikishovel, as opposed to the scammer impersonating Wikishovel? Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

because I thought it was genuine and paid him, he published our page then it was taken down. The-symbiant (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, so far, you have presented no evidence. What was the precise title of the deleted article? That will allow us to investigate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The article was Symbiant_(company). Note the only edit Wikishovel did was to move the page for proper titling. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiant_company it was proposed by a deleted user Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa The-symbiant (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

how did rickinbaltimore get there before I told you the article name. Very odd. Anyway you have been told. The-symbiant (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Because as an admin I can see deleted pages. And it didn't take a lot of digging to find it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well whoever was responsible for publishing that page is your scammer. The-symbiant (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

and the scammer claimed to be Wikishovel The-symbiant (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User: User:Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa is not deleted. They are an undisclosed paid editor. This was a throwaway account that made ten routine edits to become autoconfirmed, which enabled the scammer to create your article. This is typical deceptive behavior by unethical businesses. Wikishovel made one routine maintenance edit. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

then there you go. Solved. The-symbiant (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The scammer lied to you. Imagine that... Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I know, cheeky bugger The-symbiant (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well as it seems you can't trust scammers to be honest these days, the scammers real name is (Redacted) and on LinkedIn he goes by (Redacted). The-symbiant (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For your amusement, an anagram of "(Redacted)" is "(Redacted)". Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 the scammer said "Stephanie has just pushed your article Wikishovel moved your article to mainspace" is this not correct? The-symbiant (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, that was just another lie by the scammer to divert attention. All that Wikishovel did was correct the article title to the format described in the Manual of Style. That is the type of edit that happens thousands of times a day, especially to new articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we do anything regarding the username violation of the OP which is clearly their company name? I know there's been this other nonsense, but I think it's time. Canterbury Tail talk 02:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought of that, Canterbury Tail, but I think that it would just add insult to injury. We can deal with the username issue if the editor tries to promote their company instead of reporting that they have been scammed. But if another administrator chooses to block on that basis, I would understand. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

So, @The-symbiant: how about an apology for accusing me here and at my talk page, without a shred of evidence, of being a scammer? Wikishovel (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wikishovel yes I do apologise, I am sorry, the scammer told me he was you. Again, I am sorry for the mistake, I had no way of knowing this could happen. I thought it was a genuine thing you guys did to get paid for all your work. Sorry. The-symbiant (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure that I understand what is going on, the scammer claimed to be WikiShovel after WikiShovel moved the page? Or before it was created? - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

it was after the page had been created. They obviously saw Wikishovel had moved the page and then used their name. The-symbiant (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I fit together because Wikishovel is obviously very efficient and gets on with things quickly. The-symbiant (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That clarifies things nicely. I appreciate your raising this here, and helping us figure out what was happening. - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. The-symbiant (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator offering to publish a company for $200

Duplicate, reported, oddly, at Talk:Wikipedia administrators. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

if you are a honest Wikipedia administrator you would be furious to learn that your fellow administrator "Wikishovel" offers to publish company pages for $200. He seems to imply that this is standard practice amongst Wikipedia administrators. Is it? The-symbiant (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, please be aware that Wikishovel is not an administrator. Dishonest, unethical paud editing operations sonetimes impersonate Wikipedians. Read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

He is publishing articles under a new user, then pushing them to be live. He charges for this. Should he be allowed to do this? The-symbiant (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The-symbiant, what evidence do you have that Wikishovel is actually the scammer, as opposed to the scammer impersonating Wikishovel? If you have solid evidence, please present it at WP:ANI. Otherwise, drop the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

i thought it was genuine, he published our page, I paid him, the page was then taken down. The-symbiant (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest making such payments only with a credit card, so that perhaps you might could get your money back. Cullen328, $200? What do you make of that? Are we that cheap? Drmies (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So you agree this is ok? The-symbiant (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, I suppose that depends on the cost of living for the scammer. $200 goes a lot further in Bangladesh than it does in New York City. The-symbiant, no, it is not OK. If you give us the exact title of the deleted article, we can investigate what happened. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It was added by User:Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa, Symbiant (company) The-symbiant (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey that's funny: that editor made one edit to a spammy article I was looking at the other day. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, this is where you come in: Ifeyinwa is confirmed with User:Pavdharii, whom you blocked a little while ago. I thought, given Ifeyinwa's edit to Isaac Richard III, that they were related to User:Isaacrichard. If you don't mind, can you have a look at this one, and -- wait, you're already on it. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• So, it is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That's my best guess so far. It's a holy sock mess, and I'm still wading through. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I brought up Stephanie Emuvoke Ifeyinwa (talk · contribs), as well as Shibliadnani (talk · contribs) and Zarafshanbatool (talk · contribs) on Drmies's talk page the other day. "Holy sock mess" seems right even without checkuser. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I've blocked Flowerkhan, Andableebkasuri, Zarafshanbatool, and Shibliadnani, as they're definitely the same person as each other. Are they related to this Abbasshaikh124? I don't have the smoking gun, but to me it seems likely, or at least eminently possible. They're all in the same country which is notorious for its paid editing and scams. As I'm sure I've seen Drmies mention recently, some of these networks are just full of spammers and scammers, and they all just kinda merge into each other. I tend to lump them all together, though there's probably a few enterprises at work. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

2603:8000:C33F:7EEC:0:0:0:0/64

• 2603:8000:C33F:7EEC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person behind this IP range has been making a bunch of unsourced edits across a bunch of articles going back to June of this year. Most of the edits involve changing references to companies, city names, or area codes across a range of articles. The edits are entirely inaccurate from what I can tell, which makes me believe it's intentional subtle vandalism. Some examples:

• Making various unsourced (and, from what I can tell, inaccurate) edits to area codes across a bunch of articles: [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390],
• Making a bunch of unsourced (and in some cases, repeated) and inaccurate edits to the headquarters of various businesses: [391], [392], [393], [394], [395], [396], [397], [398], [399], [400], [401], [402], etc.

They've received at least a dozen warnings about their edits: (listed chronologically) one here, three here, one here, one here, four here, and two here. Six of the warnings were from the last four days.

IPs on the range have been blocked previously at least three times since June, see this block log here. The most recent block, from what I can tell, was for three months from July 26, 2023 through October 26, 2023. Within a week of that block expiring, the person behind the IP began making the same types of disruptive edits again.

Can an administrator please re-block this range for at least a few more months? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. firefly ( t · c ) 09:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Firefly: Thank you very much. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No probs - subtle hoaxing (which this certainly seems to be) is corrosive. firefly ( t · c ) 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Rawna Praveen singh solanki

A user clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia and continuously vandalizing Wikipedia by using unverified poorly sourced materials and even moving their own moved pages from Draft space to main space by violating the Wikipedia neutrality and copy pasting Colonial era sources, and even after all giving wrong warnings to my talk page and attacking for no reason and all well explained removal of poorly sourced material, he is being added again and again. I am also leaving some examples for the examination. For using poorly sourced material [403] [404]

For moving draft space articles to main space and not accepting the neutral point of view of other editors [405]

For giving wrong warnings and attacking against Wikipedia neutrality [[406] 

Even after fourth level warnings he is continuesly vandalizing the Wikipedia articles please see some warnings given by other users. [level warnings] Fancy vißes (call) 21:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Rawna Praveen singh solanki added a fake block notice at User talk:Fancy vibēs, which I have now deleted. I agree with the above comments about unsourced/unreliably sourced additions, especially edits at Ravana Rajputs - Arjayay (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. It's simply disruptive edit after disruptive edit, and there's probably a CIR issue here too. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Morjudka

It seems Morjudka finds it difficult to play well with others; see exhibits A and B. Maybe that's the end of it, maybe not, either way thought I ought to flag them up here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Morjudka. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

IP making accusations that an editor is being paid by the Russian government

On Talk:Scott Ritter, 129.7.0.14 made a comment accusing User:Philomathes2357 of being "on Putin's payroll". I removed this, only for the IP to re-install it, saying "RussianTroll2357 definitely is". After removing this one last time and leaving a NPA warning on their talk page, they again reinstalled it and accused me of "protecting a Russian troll". These allegations are flagrant WP:NPA violations and having spoken to the editor about it only to be repeatedly reverted, I'm left with no choice to come here. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IP Blocked 31 hours for the repeated personal attacks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

this is just more of the same - it's been going on for a year. The trolls usually derail any conversation that I start. Thanks for jumping on them. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I was directed here by Slatersteven after sharing some concerns on his talk page. I don't think from reading things the past few hours that you are being trolled, I think there are some big concerns about your behaving in violation of WP:TIMESINK. The block log says you were previously blocked for that. I was initially thinking you were just a really anti-USA user when I saw the stuff on [407] but after reading your history of warnings and asking, Slatersteven showed me the WP:NOT policy and I think a lot of what you are doing is that. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That may be so and you're free to file a ANI report if you want, but this one is about them being personally attacked, so let's not reward the IP's unacceptable behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Everyone involved in a discussion at ANI is subject to scrutiny. 216.126.35.244 (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Note I was asked where they should report their concerns. I will add that Philomathes2357 does seem to have some issues with refusing to accept consensus, and it seems motivated by POV pushing. Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

After further review I think it's more than just that. USNavelObservatory (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to launch a separate ANI and present your evidence. I am merely commenting on the idea they are an innocent victim. Not everyone who disagrees with them is a troll. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a new problem so I will file a new one here in a bit. USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:ChimaFan12

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.

---

ChimaFan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past year, this user has been disruptively pushing for their preferred changes across a variety of Marvel Cinematic Universe–related articles, despite consensus against them or a lack of consensus. In fact, nearly all of their ~600 edits have been dedicated to righting WP:GREATWRONGS on MCU articles; it is evident that they are a WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. This user has acted aggressively and combatively, ignored the WP:STATUSQUO and pre-existing consensus, accused editors who disagree with them of OWN, claimed that there was consensus for something when there was not, and claimed the opposite when consensus was formed but not in their favor.

Throughout all this, the user has persistently resorted to edit-warring when they are unable to get their way and while discussions are still ongoing, as seen at [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] [413]. They have been warned of this many times, including in edit summaries, on their talk page (which they have repeatedly blanked: 1, 2, 3, 4), and at ANEW (no action taken because they narrowly escaped the 24-hour window). They have also banned certain users from posting messages on their talk pages (WP:SOMTP), attempted to circumvent the consensus-building process by submitting an edit request for a controversial change, and even tried to recruit an uninvolved administrator to back them (the admin did not take the bait).

A sampling of their greatest hits to illustrate the gravity of the situation:

• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § “Marvel Knights” vs Defenders Saga.
• Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe § Cancelled projects and uncritical placement within the brand.
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 5 § Helstrom
• Talk:Adventure into Fear (franchise) § Reviving potential merger into Helstrom
• Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series § Chronology in the lead
• Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series § Head of Marvel Television Jeph Loeb
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/Archive 6 § Spider-Man: Freshman Year MCU?
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § Request for Comment: Adventure Into Fear
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force § All Marvel productions are now from Marvel Cinematic Universe?
• Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe § Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline fallout
• Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series § Adventure into Fear “developed for the MCU”?

As you can see, it has been an endless cycle of long-winded discussions, edit wars, RfCs that go nowhere, and edits without consensus. The discussions themselves are riddled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments, bad-faith accusations, incivil or rude comments, plenty of bludgeoning, and rehashing of DEADHORSE arguments. They have accused editors of being "clique-ish and obstructive", "disrespectful and disingenuous", "attempt[ing] to intimidate users under false pretenses", and posting messages "designed solely to degrade and intimidate" them. When editors make efforts to reach a compromise, they reject the proposals as not meeting all of their demands: 1, 2 3. One particularly nasty comment: My bad for saying you need to practice reading. Maybe you just need to learn what words mean before you use them.

This disruptive behavior has become tiresome and mentally draining for editors. The ceaseless flood of new talk page discussions initiated by them is impossible to keep track. It is clear that the user is unwilling to collaborate constructively and work with consensus. To prevent further disruption, I am calling for either a topic ban on MCU-related articles or a full block. Pinging other parties involved: @Trailblazer101, Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, Alex 21, Gonnym, Facu-el Millo, and YgorD3. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal: Indef TBAN from MCU-related articles - this user doesn't seem to be completely obstructive, at least engages with others (if not effectively), and seems to be acting in good faith, if not very immaturely. Maybe if they can demonstrate they can work constructively w/ consensus in other topic areas then they should be allowed back to their passion. I think a full block is too much. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to defend myself here. The entire time I've been here, I've only operated in good faith, though I have to admit that at times I've let my frustration get the better of me. That "learn what words mean" comment, I have to say has no excuse and is an isolated instance. I have made accusations about other users' behaviors, accusations that I wholeheartedly believe and think that they are continuously exhibiting. I do think the Taskforce has been cliquish and biased against credible sources arguing that particular projects are not in the MCU. Edits that I make are instantly reverted at times and very similar edits are allowed through. Complaints people throw at me about the nature of my edits don't seem to exist when people make similar ones. Just look at the shift in attitude from what Favre proposed hereafter I posted my proposal here. Comments of mine in both discussions point out valid policy concerns (including NPOV and OWNERSHIP), not a mere matter of preference. I find it disheartening when my words are so blatantly misrepresented by users as you can see in that second link in order for me to be blocked from making a well-sourced contribution to an article.

I will say, though, for all of the conversations I've been involved in, I actually have worked with consensus. I don't think that this complaint does a good job displaying that. For instance:

1. Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Cancelled projects and uncritical placement within the brand. - I ceased editing the box and am awaiting a consensus on AIF that is in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding STICKTOTHESOURCE, NPOV, and SYNTH.
2. Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#“Marvel Knights” vs Defenders Saga. - I get behind InfiniteNexus' own compromise. In my newness, I get confused with the process of finding consensus (this happens a couple of times earlier on but is made explicitly clear to me in the later I Am Groot discussion that occurs later this month.) An edit is made by another user in accordance with the consensus. I assume consensus gets reached when it hasn't, because discussion is still ongoing and we haven't worked out the kinks in a way that satisfies everybody's concerns appropriately under Wikipedia policy.
3. Talk:Marvel's Netflix television series#Head of Marvel Television Jeph Loeb - I was actively involved in finding this consensus and it was one that I have helped upheld. If I recall correctly, this addresses my problem that I point out at the end of the discussion on the previous page. Happy camper here.
4. Talk:Adventure into Fear (franchise)#Reviving potential merger into Helstrom - I began condensing this but as soon as it became obvious that my edit was contested, I returned the page to the status quo before I got there. I believe this discussion expresses a lot of my concerns with the Taskforce and it's where the clique quote comes from. In any case, I honor and uphold the original edits and as of yet have not returned to it. When I do, it will merely be in my sandbox and I will create an appropriate proposal for the changes.
5. Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series - This is a long and frustrating conversation wherein I make a lot of mistakes that highlight the correct process a lot better for me. As you can see, an issue I exhibit here (and in some earlier discussions, which is where a lot of the edit warring comes from) is that I assume consensus has been reached when it hasn't. We are still working out an exact consensus and I am happy to keep working on it.
6. On the current discussions regarding the MCU timeline book, I object to the current popular proposal out of valid wiki policy concerns. I would encourage all reading this to read the full discussions (they're the two hyperlinked "here"s in this message) before coming to any conclusions. I'm happy to find a consensus that addresses my policy concerns on the page. Wikipedia's article on finding consensus points out that valid concerns related to wiki policy are an acceptable reason for an otherwise agreed upon edit not to be implemented, and it is not considered stonewalling to do so. It has nothing to do with "my demands". It has everything to do with policy concerns including ownership, NPOV, and UNDUEWEIGHT for pro-MCU claims.

As for banning a user from my talk page, the user was not making constructive, productive edits. They were taunting and it felt like harassment. I would encourage people to take a look at my talk page history if they'd like to see more and to decide for themselves. Further, please click on all the hyperlinks wherein I'm described as characterizing editors' behaviors a certain way. I hope it provides context and rationale for why I have done so. I don't think it's egregious to call out when people are being disrespectful and disingenuous as you see it, or to accuse someone who's a non-admin and has been otherwise non-involved with a discussion issuing "final warnings" of overstepping and attempting to intimidate. At this time, being otherwise occupied, I struggle to create a full report of these other users' behavior that's nearly as in depth with links as this one is about me (although this one is sparse in unbiased details and portrayals of events). Ultimately, I think the accusations against me ultimately come down to a process of trial and error wherein I've made many mistakes but have learned from them to be a better editor. When someone points something out about my behavior, I do change it.

If there are any errors in my behavior, I will be happy to course correct. I've done so before, and hopefully you trust me to do so again. I am constantly improving myself. Thank you for listening. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As for bludgeoning, I also have to say I've certainly improved in that area. Compare the discussions from the last two months (IAMGROOT and the timeline discussions) to the ones regarding Helstrom from previous months. In August and July, I was still finding my bearings. Those are where the accusations of bludgeoning arose the most and even though I fully believed I was operating in good faith and not trying to intimidate users, I have to concede there were times where it was a bit much. I fully apologize for those. Particularly this month, after all the trouble I got into with the preemptive closure and presumptive consensus in the earlier half of the I Am Groot conversation, I've been a lot better about allowing users' objections to remain without getting into rhetorical arguments beneath their votes.

I also resent my messages to administrators' being described as bait rather than sincere attempts at mediation. Further, my protected edit request on the Inhumans page was not an attempt at circumventing conversation, as you can see from the fact that I'm actively involved in the conversation. I provide a valid reason for requesting that edit and I had assumed I was speaking to an objective third party like an administrator who would be able to help mediate. I do not think that the portrayal of my actions here is charitable or captures the spirit they were intended in, and instead casts a rather sinister tone around them that I wholeheartedly refute. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12, this caught my eye: I don't think it's egregious to call out when people are being disrespectful and disingenuous as you see it, or to accuse someone who's a non-admin and has been otherwise non-involved with a discussion issuing "final warnings" of overstepping and attempting to intimidate. I disagree. Focus on discussing content, not your opinions of editors; your approach leads to situations such as this one, where you're having to defend yourself. By the way, any editor can issue a "final warning", they don't need to be an administrator nor do they have to be involved in the discussion. So accusing that editor (whoever it was) of overstepping or attempting to intimidate is not appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I respect your analysis and would agree not to repeat that sort of behavior. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make one final edit to address accusations about me being a single purpose account. (Hopefully as I'm responding to myself and only noticing more now about what has already been said, this isn't seen as bludgeoning -- it's not my intention.) I don't think that is true, as I have a variety of interests (though the Marvel Cinematic Universe is at the top). I've edited pages that I've seen regarding other actors not involved with the MCU and genuinely have tried to make my edits in an appropriate manner. I also don't think NOTHERE applies to me either. A lot of my edits and discussions clearly invoke concerns over wikipedia policy. I want to be as objective as I can be, and I constantly stick with wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge. When that knowledge is expanded, I always apply the lessons I learn. I like it here and I don't intend to be disruptive. I acknowledge past behavior has been disruptive, but I don't believe any current behaviors to be and have always amended when it was clear wiki policy and basic decency was not on my side. As for GREATWRONGS, I am not here with an agenda. I am trying to reflect the official positions of real world sources in a faithful manner, and on matters like Adventure into Fear, I have found that the current structure of the edits, particularly as pertains to MCU connectivity, does not. I'm a big fan of a majority of the shows. On a personal, off-wiki note, I keep a list of viewing orders of the MCU featuring a majority of the Marvel Television series as part of the MCU. I believe treating these series being part of the MCU enhances my enjoyment of them and takes me back to a simpler time. I do, however, recognize that real-life sources are not on my side when it comes to them being MCU and all my edits here have been in the interest of adhering to fact and removing as many misleading details as I can. My personal biases and the nature of my edits are not in alignment with one another. ChimaFan12 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that prior to this, there was no attempt at conflict resolution from InfiniteNexus, and per Civility, when I was made aware of my comments being unkind from other users prior to this report being filed, I adjusted my comments so that they were more civil. These are not the actions of a bad actor. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I for one am unpersuaded by this spurious change of heart. If you had truly learned from your mistakes, your comments at the most recent discussion would look very different, and you would not have started a ... what is it, fourth? DEADHORSE discussion about Adventure into Fear just a few days ago. And as we speak, you just edit-warred again here — 24 minutes after promising you would stop your disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  That last edit you linked states in the edit description that, according to wiki policy, since discussion involving concerns over policy is still ongoing, consensus has not yet been reached. I full heartedly agree with that. I was going to put a note in saying if that edit is reverted, I will not reinstate it but rather ask an admin to keep an eye on the conversation, but I worried that would be seen as an intimidation attempt and I did not want to make anyone feel that way.

  I do not believe this is a change of heart on my behalf. I've always been interested in reaching consensus, expanding the encyclopedia accurately, and coming to resolutions. Wikipedia is one of the most vital sources in society, and it is in everyone's best interest that it is as accurate as possible.

  If my Adventure into Fear discussion is DEADHORSE as you characterize it, I apologize. I didn't see it as such when I posted it, and frankly I still don't, given it's a concise and specific question that is of additional interest now given concerns over Feige's quote on the MCU timeline book not being specific enough for some parties, rather than a rehashing of multiple threads and aspects of the conversation. Likewise, I don't believe my comments at the most recent discussion should look particularly different, although there is one where I accused another member of being manipulative and "sad" and given what Schazjmd has said, which is actually at the heart of a lot of wikipedia policies, I do not think that edit was constructive. I admit to being frustrated and letting that frustration at times spill out into my interactions with others, but I think that's true for all parties involved. This is a long-lasting situation not because anybody wants it to be, but because the matters being discussed are complicated and have been for a long time. I think what would be the best solution would not be to have anyone banned or punished. I don't want that for anybody else. I think it would be in the spirit of collaboration to have more parties have an eye on the subject and provide input that can help us sort it out without emotions getting the better of us. Would you be open to that? ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this is the edit reason underneath the edit InfinteNexus has just linked accusing me of edit-warring: "Discussion is still ongoing. My objections are not a manner of personal preference but of policy concern. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, we should wait until discussion is concluded before we proceed, as serious policy concerns remain unaddressed with this version of the edit." If this action was wrong or inappropriate, please let me know. As I said, I don't intend to revert again if it is reverted as I really do not want to be involved in another edit war. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  One further note: for the sake of full transparently, and seeing as @Schazjmd has reminded me the importance of commenting on content rather than the character of my fellow contributors, I have been making an edit to a comment of mine posted 3 days prior to my first edit that has not received any replies. I am doing this for the sole purpose of allowing the conditions for a more fruitful conversation to occur without the focus being diverted to users' characters. Here is the permanent link to my edit so you can see what has been edited and why. Likewise, here. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It is very much an (ostensible) change of heart. You are desperately trying to change the narrative in light of this ANI thread, trying very hard to reframe your actions as mistakes that you have learned from. Your comments and actions right before the ANI thread indicate that you have not. Please know that ANI was a last resort for editors who have tried to work with you for a full year, but your continued refusal to collaborate constructively has caused others to finally run out of patience. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not. I've been made aware of a way I was acting against wiki policy and have been trying to correct my actions in areas where I have the right to do so. I think the links you've provided speak for themselves. This ANI which you alone submitted, without any other user's contributions, reflects your personal exhaustion with me. I regret that you've run out of patience with me but I don't think the way you present information has been charitable. I'm always trying my best to work towards an outcome that works for everybody. That's not new. And you're right that even in recent days I've let my frustration get the better of me, but I believe that that's true for everybody and I'm committed to improving. I'd rather we work towards a solution that works, and if you don't want to work with me it is entirely your right not to. I will not try to pull you into conversations you don't want to be involved in. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, from not only the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but from all articles pertaining to comic books and superheroes and any TV show, animated cartoon, movie, video game or any other type of media, present or future, related even peripherally to comic books or superheroes. The editor claims that they are not an SPA. They can prove that by spending an extended period of time editing entirely unrelated topics. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, I'm not certain what this would achieve. That punishment is far too broad ("even peripherally related to comic books or superheroes"?) The page describing SPAs states that they should contribute neutrally, which in general, I do. My edits don't have an agenda, certainly not one that can be articulated. The subject I've probably pushed the most is renovating Adventure into Fear/Helstrom to be more objective pages, at least regarding their connection to the MCU and the development thereof. My earliest edits were a successful RFC in which a majority of users agreed with me that there was a lack of objectivity with certain claims and we arrived at a consensus to fix that. I haven't gone out of my way, prior to the release of the Timeline book, to convince anyone that the other shows aren't part of the MCU, ever. I Am Groot also was the basis for a large discussion, but it's impossible to tie that to any sort of agenda that has to do with Adventure into Fear or my other contributions, and we've arrived at a general consensus that I Am Groot is a TV show even if we're figuring out how to incorporate it on the article. I've actually come to a consensus I agree with on every subject to date and upheld consensuses that I didn't necessarily agree with. There's no agenda here. If you look at all the discussions you can see that my biggest concern has been upholding Wikipedia policy and being neutral.

  I think the bigger problem is that I've had blindspots when it comes to project norms, I'll admit, but I think it's exceptionally clear that I've overcome many of those blindspots and am at least committed to further improvement. ChimaFan12 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support tban They continue to argue about their own personal interpretation of the time line of people-in-spandex TV. From just a few minutes ago, they are arguing that company employees are reliable secondary sources for in-universe stuff - [414] Just here for the facts (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't implemented any edits based on that comment, and I am only pointing out that in my interpretation of Wikipedia:SPS, Kevin Feige would count as an expert whose work on MCU projects has previously been published by reliable independent sources. If this is wrong, I apologize, but I don't think I should be punished for disagreeing with you and trying to adhere to policy as I understand it. I'd rather be corrected than punished out of hand. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  His personal fortunes depend on the MCU, he is far from independent for this topic. Just here for the facts (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. When you produced Wikipedia:Primary I read through the numbered guidelines and per number 3 and 4, I concede that your interpretation of the guidelines on the subject is correct. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  FYI: Link to conversation is here. Look to the bottom of the thread. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for MCU-related articles for all the reasons laid out by InfiniteNexus in their initial comment above. I echo everything they have said, and would like to reemphasize how the multiple discussions across various talk pages on similar issues has made discussion hard to follow with this editor, and then when discussion eventually settle in one location, the arguments eventually just go around and around in circles, or attempts to reach consensus introduce new variables/claims from them after the fact, that again make it hard to work towards consensus. There is only so many attempts at discussions on the material with the constant reverting (with the oh-so-close but just outside the window of edit-warring) and not accepting consensus where it just has become viewed as disruptive and draining for everyone else to again explain the consensus and enter the cycle all over again. It has led me to believe they are just WP:NOTLISTENING and that they should WP:DROPTHESTICK and haven't, hence my support of a topic ban. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  The only time I did not accept a “consensus” was yesterday, as I raised numerous valid policy concerns and it became evident that there were other policy concerns I had missed. There has been no other occasion. Every time the consensus has been explained to me, I’ve accepted it even if I didn’t agree with it, and in all of those cases I have not pressed forward. ChimaFan12 (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN (uninvolved) per Cullen; I would also recommend the editor learn the value of WP:WALLS and WP:BLUDGEON. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN from entertainment media articles, broadly construed, like Cullen328 has suggested. I see too many problems here, trying to push a certain POV or narrative to these MCU articles in numerous ways – edit warring, gaming the system by 'narrowly' avoiding 3RR and by stonewalling, as well as not dropping the stick, and bludgeoning on talk pages, all of which altogether constitutes highly disruptive editing. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment since this got caught up in the auto archiver I guess (which I will note again here I moved back to the ANI page from the archive here and here), can we get an admin to close/decide on what should happen here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (involved), as being on the receiving end of bludgeoning, a TBAN would be ideal. This user just does not stop until they know 3RR would get them. I feel for the longer term editors that have had interactions over a much longer time frame. Multiple times in multiple talk page comments, this user has been warned about their behavior, with links to WP:BLUDGEON and other similar type of undesirable actions, without any improvement. If this person can learn over six months to a year, perhaps allow editing in the area again.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:52, 5 November 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.

Alumim massacre WP:V issues

Alumim massacre is a fast-evolving WP:V disaster. Most of the page simply fails verification outright. It was created on 31 October out-of process by an non-EC confirmed editor (in the ARBPIA CT space) before being draftified, and then moved back to mainspace by an EC editor. Unfortunately, the page was only superficially improved, with citations added alongside statements, but with no adjustments made to the statements. The result is a mess of a page that superficially looks verified, but if you actually go through the statements and check the associated links, it largely fails verification. This is not a complaint against a specific editor, but this content urgently needs experienced eyes to guide what is currently a debacle of unexperienced editing. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another ARBPIA page created by a non-EC user, where the broader issues of non-EC ARBPIA activity has been raised. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I ec protected it without looking at other issues. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Unverified claims galore. I'll try sorting it out a bit, and if that doesn't work then I'll start a talk page discussion. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I also see what Iskandar323 means. Some of the refs are not relevant. The article should focus on the specific event and not rehash the war. Most of the refs incl. those in Hebrew are on point but very POV, so need to be written more neutrally (including the terrorist / militant issue). I’ve wikignomed some other similar articles so I’m happy to help with rewrite. The newbie editors also seem to not understand what Iskandar323 is telling them, so I’m going to explain how Wp:V works on the talk page again. Ayenaee (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I’ve tried cleaning it up. Borgenland (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Good work! Professor Penguino (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User: Voskresno

Would an uninvolved administrator please take a look at the recent behavior by this editor at User talk: Cullen328#Harassment and User:Voskresno/Harassment by """Administrator""" and User talk: Bishonen#Harassment, please?. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I indeffed the user before seeing the notice on their talk about this report. If someone wants more drama, feel free to unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thanks for the prompt action. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:Wwiki123456789

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 editor means well but apparently most of his edits have to be repaired or reverted by other editors as they degrade the quality of the article and introduce errors. The editor also doesn't seem to respond to messages either on the article discussion page such as here or on his personal talk page.

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to warn the editor on their talk page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{discuss real emo here...} 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Premature. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{discuss real emo here...} 00:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Your signature is VERY distracting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Better? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{discuss real emo here...} 01:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh that did nothing. Never-ending. I'll edit it again when I'm at work. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{discuss real emo here...} 01:04, 8 November 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 block for User:Hospitalworking

Just-blocked spam account Hospitalworking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to spam their talk page, and probably needs access revoked. Thanks! --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked account

How do I open a blocked account? 180.249.164.117 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are looking to request an unblock, you need to login that account and follow the guidelines here: WP:GAB. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

COI editor (Georebekah on Rebekah Jones)

Per the VRT confirmation at commons:File:Rebekah_Jones_Photo.jpg, their pattern of editing on the article, and referring to the person as "me" in this edit, it seems reasonably certain to me that Georebekah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Rebekah Jones. They were given a couple warnings about COI editing in 2020, which they've ignored several times just recently. In this circumstance, a partial block from the article seems appropriate for me, but since I have not been doing this for very long, I would like to get some opinions here first. jp×g🗯️ 08:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

JPxG, pageblocks are, in my opinion, a very useful tool for dealing with this particular type of disruption. The editor should be instructed to make neutral, well-referenced Edit requests at Talk: Rebekah Jones instead. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

While I agree, recently is in the eye of the beholder. If she comes back and does it again, that would be the time to P-Block. It's been over two months since she last edited her own article. spryde | talk 15:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, and rather than require someone to watchlist this user's contribs until they come back for the sake of a casus belli, I have partial-blocked them from the article indefinitely and encouraged them to use the talk page. jp×g🗯️ 01:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. If the editor has a likely COI, then I don't quite understand the point of whether they edited two minutes ago or two months ago; either way, they should be blocked from the article. Grandpallama (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Blocks are intended to prevent further disruption – so if your most recent diff is as stale as two months, you have to prove that it's still likely that the disruption will happen again. A good way to prove it, as was done here, is showing multiple diffs over a long period of time that show a time-independent pattern of disruption to the article. If it was a single diff six months ago, a pblock would be overkill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the intent of blocks; it doesn't depend in this case, because disruption has already been demonstrated. How recently the disruptive COI editor has edited is irrelevant. Grandpallama (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. As always, we need evidence that disruption is likely to continue and time is definitely a factor here. If someone came here and demonstrated that an editor had repeatedly edited an article where they had a CoI 10 years ago and continued even after they'd been warned but hadn't edited in over 10 years despite the article that concerned them still existing, this editor complaining would rightfully be told this is stale, stop annoying us with dumb things. If instead of stopping editing this CoI editor had actually continued to edit Wikipedia intermittently making productive edits here and there but not having touched the area where they had a CoI in 10 years there would even be a stronger case of this is stale, don't waste our time with this shit. If we go even further, and the editor had actually had many highly productive edits in that 10 years being significantly responsible for 10 FAs, 30 GAs with no one producing any evidence that any of their editing since that 10 years was a problem for CoI reasons, an editor demanding a partial block or even an acknowledgement of the 10 year old wrongdoing and their CoI and agreement to do better than 10 years ago, would be told to fuck off by the community and risk a boomerang. Likewise if someone was semi-regularly active and causing problems in an area where they had a CoI and the evidence is that they were subject A, and this disruption suddenly stopped when subject A died suddenly 2 months ago, an editor demanding a partial block is going to be told to fuck off, maybe even risk a boomerang. For that matter, if after a long period of disruption culminating in final warnings but no block, the editor with a CoI had acknowledged their wrong and stopped editing directly but instead started to make requests on the talk page for the past few days, an editor demanding a partial block would be told yeah nah; no evidence it's needed any more. You cannot assume historic disruption means a block is justified. Instead you need to look at the totality of circumstances including the time since the last disruption, how long the disruption continued, other circumstances around the disruption etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Remember also COI editors are explicitly not forbidden from editing articles. They're just strongly discouraged from doing so. Their CoI means they often will bad edits without recognising these are bad edits. So the fact that an editor has a CoI and edits an article where they have a CoI doesn't mean they have to be blocked. The editor's specific edits need to be a problem. In this case, the editor has repeatedly editing an article where they have a CoI and it seems many or most of their edits have been bad. In that case blocking may be appropriate. By comparison, it would be inappropriate to block someone just because they have repeatedly reverted vandalism or even if they've just made edits no one disagrees with in an article where they have a CoI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but in this case, the disruption is already clear, which is why the argument that the last edit was two months ago didn't make sense. Far more sensible to enact the prophylactic pageblock rather than to leave the door open. The frequency with which we cause our own headaches is so common that I appreciate JPxG's approach here. Grandpallama (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But blocking policy and community consensus requires that we have reason to expect continued disruption rather than simply historic disruption. It explicitly does not allow us to punish someone by blocking them just because they've annoyed us a lot in the past which is what you seem to be advocating for and is IMO seriously, seriously wrong and not a Wikipedia I ever want to be a part of. In this case, with evidence that the editor seems to come back an edit disruptively every few months or in a year or two then the fact an editor hasn't edited in 2 months might indeed be not important since there is reason to think it might reoccur. But you're suggesting we should not care how long it's been since the last disruptive edit or otherwise consider how the length of time when taking with the other circumstances factors into the likelihood they will continue to edit inappropriately, which as I demonstrated above is seriously wrong. Wrong enough that I don't think I can discuss this further without risking saying something that may get me blocked so I'll leave this be. But I'll repeat this again, what you're advocating is not a Wikipedia I ever want to be part of as an editor who cares about BLP. We do not punish editors just because they've edited inappropriately where they have a CoI. We only block editors where we have reason to think their disruption may continue which does require us to look at the totality of circumstances including the editor's history of disruption and how long it been since the last disruption. Nil Einne (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Historic disruption, with an account that goes dark and occasionally resurfaces to disrupt again, indicates a strong likelihood of future disruption. To put in a pageblock is a highly limited, preventative action to redirect that editor away from the disruptive editing. It's not punitive, because the underlying action is to protect the page from demonstrable, established disruption from a known source. I'm not implying we should have a blanket policy (which you seem to have understood I was pushing for, and which may have been a miscommunication on my part) of blocking COI editors. That said, I think it is false logic to assume that preventing future disruption--based upon an analysis of past disruption--equals a punitive action. An editor's amazing work in a number of other places doesn't prevent admins or the community from taking action in a place where the editor has a demonstrated issue--that's why pageblocks and TBANs exist in the first place. I think it's worth noting that in my posts, I have very specifically included the verbiage "in this case", because in this case, the editing pattern does suggest that however long the editor in question has been taking breaks, each time they return, they resume the same specific disruption. You've raised a lot of "what ifs", but I am reacting to this specific situation. As you say, In this case, with evidence that the editor seems to come back an edit disruptively every few months or in a year or two then the fact an editor hasn't edited in 2 months might indeed be not important since there is reason to think it might reoccur. (bolding emphasis mine), which is exactly my point. I actually think we're in agreement, but somehow you have inferred I think we should not care how long it's been since the last disruptive edit or otherwise consider how the length of time when taking with the other circumstances factors into the likelihood they will continue to edit inappropriately, which I don't think I did. As I said, if the miscommunication is on my part, I apologize, but I don't think we actually disagree, unless you think this particular pageblock is somehow punitive. So please don't get so heated you say that thing which would get you blocked. :) Grandpallama (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Funny enough, I slapped an NPOV tag on the article, quite independently of this discussion (I saw the handle GeoRebekah displayed quite prominently in an academic network map of tweets about COVID and searched it up), but just hours after it started. I did so because something felt off about the way the whole article was presenting things.

Now you say there’s a CoI issue? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive user edit-warring across multiple articles

France-Pt9301 is engaged in a one-person edit against multiple established users at both French language and Vatican City. The user has already violated 3RR, but reporting here as the behavior is even more troubling. The user says they're well aware they are edit warring (and several users have warned them) but state they will continue regardless. This seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz I blocked for 72 hours for continually adding unsourced material and edit-warring. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Preventative block request

Archangel1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based upon this editor's brief but clearly WP:NOTHERE editing history, which includes a legal threat here, aspersions against a long-time editor in good standing here and here, and an attempt to draw a topic-banned editor into their conspiracy theory here, I request that an admin impose a block to prevent further disruption. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the user, whoever they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Technical assistance requested

Please see @SamX: post on my talk page. User talk:Maile66#Deletion of User talk:EditorEpic. What am I missing here? Please assist this user's request. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've undeleted the older revisions of that user's talk page, per my understanding of the discussion at your talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

IP(s) repeatedly using talk page as forum for rants

• 109.107.230.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.220.116.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.107.228.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These IPs, most likely the same user, keep posting racist or otherwise non-constructive, partly nonsensical comments on Talk:Berbers. At best, a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:FORUM, including some personal attacks. Even their first comments ([415], [416]), which are superficially on topic, are still unconstructive and were added hours after the claims they're objecting to (that these two historical figures are Berber) were removed from the article ([417]). Their subsequent comments make it clear that they just want to rant and respond by attacking editors: [418], [419], [420], [421], [422], [423]. They've been warned about their behaviour several times: [424], [425], [426].

I don't think their latest comment ([427]) should be allowed to remain on the talk page, but they've already shown that they're willing to edit-war over it if removed (see [428], [429]). Given that the IP number changed twice, I'm not sure if blocking them is the best solution, so any other advice is also welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've partial blocked 37.220.116.0/22 and 109.107.228.0/22 from Talk:Berbers and Talk:Lebanon for two weeks. Let me know if they get around the blocks and I'll take another look.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help. R Prazeres (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: @Ponyo, this IP appears to be the same user again. Posting similar comment on the same talk page, [430]. R Prazeres (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've dropped another rangeblock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise / Mychemicalromanceisrealemo

Original heading: "Disruptive editing by User:Skyerise" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It was suggested I move this comment here. Please merge this to the above notice if policy dictates, I mainly write and edit pages and I specifically try not to engage in debates anymore.

Since the beginning of the conflict on Western tulku-Tulku,User:Skyerise has engaged in disruptive editing, including:

• Threats;

• Refusal to assume (or accept) good faith;

• Canvassing;

• Purposefully creating edit conflicts, as they did not want to "let [me] finish" a completely misguided page per their own words;

• Censorship, removing mentions of race where it is present in the original source; and

• Merging against policy (i.e., without consensus), which is especially deceptive since they have been falsely claiming it is a fork which was split off the older Tulku page.

I think that it is important to note that according to their user page, Skyerise is a western Tibetan Buddhist. This isn't exactly a conflict of interest but it seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of attempted censorship and POV-pushing based on Skyerise's personal offense taken at the criticism academics have levied against certain Western tulku or the concept of "tulku envy".

Apologies for the long comment, but this is incredibly stressful and I have to deal with white Buddhist rage enough as it is.

References

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I want to note I did warn the aforementioned user with {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~, they simply have reverted the edit on their talk page. Just in case it comes up. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant page here appears to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku, which I suggest is the first starting point. Note Skyerise's comment that the article is "racist" and the comments from User:Johnbod and User:AirshipJungleman29. I actually wonder if this report belongs at WP:ANI? Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That is where I initially posted this. Another editor suggested I move it here. Misunderstood. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: this is starting to look like Venue Shopping. See also Talk:Western tulku for my actual arguments as opposed to the strawmen being presented here. Skyerise (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:AirshipJungleman29 suggested this should go on the noticeboard, not me; I thought it to stay on the AfD proposal. I'll concede here though: one should look all the talk pages and page histories involved as I suggested above, before making any accusations. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note I have moved this here from WP:AN as there is clearly a user conduct issue now; the page Talk:Western tulku now includes accusations of being racist [431], and Skyerise calling the OP a jerk [432] . Skyerise needs to calm down quite a bit IMO, before they get a block. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• And further - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo_reported_by_User:Skyerise_(Result:_). Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  They have also made their intention to bring this up at WP:BLP known on the WP:ANEW thread. They haven't done this yet, but they threatened to do it earlier (marking it for speedy delete) too on one of the talk pages. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing useful was going to come out of that edit-warring noticeboard discussion, so I have closed it pointing to this ANI thread here as a central venue for conduct discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, the amount of pages I've had to keep track of was making my head spin. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 22:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Skyerise is now using the Western tulku talk page as a forum to defend, of all people, Steven Seagal. She's also used strange synthesized arguments in order to soften the blow on criticism of another Westernntulku: However, Sherrill's ideals and views have in turn been questioned in the Los Angeles Times. This was her synopsis of this article, which does not seem to make the points she's claiming it makes. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to note that User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo is now repeatedly removing my talk page posts. Skyerise (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Already brought this up. WP:NOTFORUM. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 23:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My intent is information to be used to improve the woefully inadequate presentation based on an opinion piece in The Guardian. Articles which are clearly op-eds don't meet the threshold for WP:BLP sources. Skyerise (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe write your own opinion piece if you want to respond to it, then. The author's criticism is properly attributed to her -- she questions whether one can be a tulku and an arms dealer. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 23:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In an opinion piece which is a primary source. We'd need a third-party secondary source to report on her opinion to include it. Skyerise (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Link the relevant policy. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 00:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can the two of you stop replying directly to each other? The bickering is really ridiculous. Let someone else get a word in. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Enough of this. Mychemicalromanceisrealemo continuing to edit war on the article ([433], [434]) and now even on the article's talk page to remove others' comments ([435], [436], [437], [438], [439]) went too far; I have blocked them from editing the article, its talk page and the deletion discussion for a week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

And anything for Skyerise's edit warring, bizarre racism claims, and forumshopping to multiple venues when multiple other editors didn't agree with them, ToBeFree? Silverseren^C 00:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This was a quick measure to stop the worst ongoing disruption. I wouldn't object to a similar block being placed to prevent further disruption from Skyerise either, or an interaction ban being proposed here. Or a topic ban if there is evidence of long-term issues in this area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I should likely be blocked from editing Tulku and it's respective talk page. Not that I plan on doing that, just seems like an oversight on User:ToBeFree's parf. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 00:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you won't edit these pages, there is no preventative need for a block. I chose the area of current, ongoing disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I won't appeal or argue on any block -- I've admittedly acted regrettably and this sort of activity has evidently negatively effected me so a topic block is probably for the best. I have other pages to work on anyway.

However I do ask that someone keep close watch on Western tulku for me because it's clearly at risk of another unilateral merge, censorship, or attempts to soften criticism in WP:RSs. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 00:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

With a deletion discussion and this ANI thread here ongoing, I hope that many users will – sooner or later – notice the recent edits and deal with them in whichever way is helpful to the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of making substantive changes to the article without consensus from BLPN. Both the AfD and BLPN post were done at the insistence of Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. If that's not really what they wanted, they should not have goaded me to AfD the article or post on BLPN. Do I have to link to diffs of his comments on the topic? The thread is User talk:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo#Western tulku. Aforesaid user should know better than to specifically request things unless they are sincere about it. I have no sarcasm detector at all. Skyerise (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

they should not have goaded me to AfD the article or post on BLPN: in the thread you link to it's pretty clearly you who brings up the possibility of AfD, saying that if Mychemicalromanceisrealemo does not merge the article with tulku you will AfD it. I find it hard to interpret that as them goading you into nominating it for AfD.
As for BLPN, the thread you link doesn't mention it at all, but again on Western tulku it initially came up because you said that you were going to raise the page on BLPN back on 2 November. You didn't actually bring it up until 3 days later. This whole threatening to bring something to a noticeboard for multiple days before actually doing so does not seem like a productive way of conducting a talkpage discussion: if you think that there is a BLP issue that the BLP noticeboard can productively help with, just leave a notice there – don't suggest that you will nominate the page for speedy deletion, and then suggest that you will bring it up at BLPN, and then bicker on the talkpage for three days before actually bringing it up at BLPN. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

When I said do it -- it wasn't sarcasm, as Skyerise keeps claiming. I did not, and do not, appreciate a senior editor making threats to do this or that with if I don't follow their suggestion. I find that abusive of the policies and abusive of one's edit counts and seniority (as Skyerise has previously pointed out, I only have 3,000 edits while they have 100,000.) I'm telling them to follow through on their threat because if it was in good faith, they would have just done it -- calling one's bluff if you will.

I feel that the fact these were threatened in the course of a discussion are evidence that they were not made in good faith. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 15:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• ToBeFree You read (presumably) [440] and [441] and you blocked the editor who was the target of those edits, but not the one that made them? I agree that MCRIREmo needed a block (or possibly that the article should simply have been protected), but that seems unbalanced. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  At risk of overstepping my boundaries, Skyerise has noted she has no intention of making substantive changes to the article. However I do not fear substantive re-writes but rather the small edits: changes in wording to remove mentions of race, removal of mentions of cultural appropriation, WP:SYNTH arguments to defend particular Western tulkus (they initially suggested I add positive information about Western tulkus, which as I see it is WP:UNDUE)...these are the things I've already seen and worried about since the beginning. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 15:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  If we agree that the block I've made was necessary, I'm not sure where the issue is. My action prevents noone from taking further action; if you see a need for a block, place it. Fully protecting the article and the talk page where recent disruption continued wasn't a realistic option to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  "You're not sure where the issue is". And there was me thinking WP:CIVIL was a policy? Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite, of course it is. Why are you not blocking? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  (details / further explanation from both) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Continued talk page disruption by 2409:4000::/22, another partial block needed?

• 2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Wikipedia admins. The /22 IPv6 range above was partially blocked from editing talk pages for one year on 31 October 2022, due to persistent disruptive activity from the range on talk pages. Almost immediately since the expiration of the rangeblock a couple of days ago, the person / people behind those disruptive talk messages are back at it, doing it again, on a basis of almost every day.

Since Wikipedia cannot display the contributions of IPv6 ranges larger than /32, here are some /32 ranges within, which have quite a recent history of disruptive / nonsense talk page additions visible in the contributions:

• 2409:4041:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (has been blocked before)
  • Diff on Talk:Video editing software, 31 Oct 2023 at 16:30 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Video editing software, 31 Oct 2023 at 16:31 UTC
  • Diff on File talk:YouTube social white square (2017).svg, 1 Nov 2023 at 04:07 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Videotelephony, 1 Nov 2023 at 12:31 UTC
  • Diff on File talk:YouTube social white square (2017).svg, 3 Nov 2023 at 18:07 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Darknet market, 4 Nov 2023 at 05:11 UTC
  • Diff on User talk:206.255.102.13, 5 Nov 2023 at 07:38 UTC
• 2409:4043:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (has 13 entries in the block log)
  • Diff on Talk:Google+, 1 Nov 2023 at 02:40 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Google+, 1 Nov 2023 at 02:40 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Videotelephony, 1 Nov 2023 at 06:41 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Sridhar Vembu, 1 Nov 2023 at 09:33 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Sridhar Vembu, 1 Nov 2023 at 09:35 UTC
  • Diff on Acharya Prashant, 2 Nov 2023 at 05:16 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:ZIP (file format), 2 Nov 2023 at 17:04 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:ZIP (file format), 2 Nov 2023 at 17:05 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:XXXX (beer), 2 Nov 2023 at 21:26 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Bebek, 3 Nov 2023 at 14:09 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Programmer, 4 Nov 2023 at 02:45 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Noise pollution, 4 Nov 2023 at 03:23 UTC
• 2409:4053:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (has been blocked four times)
  • Diff on Talk:Google hacking, 3 Nov 2023 at 11:56 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Finance, 4 Nov 2023 at 08:35 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Finance, 4 Nov 2023 at 08:35 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Death Note, 4 Nov 2023 at 19:48 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Video editing software, 5 Nov 2023 at 00:12 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Video editing software, 5 Nov 2023 at 00:19 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Phycomycetes, 5 Nov 2023 at 14:11 UTC
• 2409:4080:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
  • Diff on Talk:Kaong palm vinegar, 31 Oct 2023 at 16:44 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Homeopathy, 1 Nov 2023 at 10:23 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Mansukh Mandaviya, 1 Nov 2023 at 16:09 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:History of India (1947–present), 2 Nov 2023 at 14:32 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Google hacking, 3 Nov 2023 at 07:50 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:Scriba (ancient Rome), 4 Nov 2023 at 14:29 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:History of Sufism, 5 Nov 2023 at 15:10 UTC
  • Diff on Talk:WhatsApp, 5 Nov 2023 at 15:59 UTC
• 2409:40E7:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
  • Diff on Talk:Google hacking, 2 Nov 2023 at 01:26 UTC

There's some unconstructive edits from this range on non-talk pages too, but most of the unproductive edits seem to be focussed on *talk namespace pages.

So could we get another partial block on this IP range from editing talk pages, like there was last year? — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• File talk:YouTube social white square (2017).svg semi-protected for 1 year immediately. I haven't even got to the second set yet. That's just bizarre. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• 2409:4053:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs) might have a little unfortunate by product, but the level of bad article edits that just kicked in seems to indicate that this is going to be just like it was. Given User talk:2409:4053:C93:B27A:6DF7:8B65:D345:C58E I've gone with Doug Weller's block again, but (given that this has been going on since 2020) now for 2 years. And since the edits are things like adding random letters and characters in the middle of articles and blanking (e.g. Special:Diff/1183316112) it's now for vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Uncle G Thanks for letting me know. Good decision. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• 2409:4041:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs) has some likely fallout but after Special:Diff/1183417854 and Draft talk:Kingofshrinivash and Special:Diff/1118853780, definitely a block. 1 year to prevent further disruption this time. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not going to do 2409:4080:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs). Whatever the merits of things like Special:Diff/1183366923 and Special:Diff/1183342980 as content, there's more attempted good-faith contribution in this range's recent edit history. Maybe this one should be narrowed down to something less broad than a /32, if possible. Somehow. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not going to do 2409:40E7:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs), either. It has 7 edits since July this year, and a clean block log for the /32. It seems manageable without a /32 rangeblock. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• The final two are the whole 2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/22 (talk · contribs) and 2409:4043:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs). I don't have the time to review an entire /22, but GeneralNotability did a 1 month range block on the /32 in 2021. The sheer amount of cat-walking-across-the-keyboard (Special:Diff/1183754663 Special:Diff/1183208872) and other stuff (including people posting their personal information into the middle of articles!) since the 1st of this month outweighs the few cases where someone from that range removed vandalism or (Special:Diff/1183567412) tried to link to Google Books India in a citation. So I'm rangeblocking that for another month. The edit history for 2022 indicates that this comes in spurts, so a year might be excessive. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the actions you've taken here. While it probably isn't possible to outright completely stop the vandalism from the /22 range without causing many constructive editors on it to also become unable to contribute, these set of smaller /32 rangeblocks and the semi-protection should put the brakes on the vandalism train here and significantly reduce the workload that us editors, patrollers and admins have to deal with on a regular basis. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

User Veveknight and their strange edits

Name and edit history (Adding a large chunk to the Controversy section of VeVe) makes me think possible WP:COI, I am requesting some more eyes and a mop in case there's clean up involved. Noted dif: Special:Diff/1183803866 I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• @AstatineEnjoyer: That's not a diff. You failed to notify the user. I don't know why you brought it here. The user's edits are straight-up vandalism and should have been reverted with appropriate warnings. I've done that part.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Probably to notify administrators. I fixed the diff link, which works now. jp×g🗯️ 19:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call it vandalism. But it's blatant pushing of a personal agenda and stating the editor's personal views in Wikipedia's voice. It's directly in conflict with the Project:No original research policy, but that's really a matter for the editorship at large to enforce. Everyone has the edit tool. Ironically, most of that everyone doesn't track this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Bbb23, would it hurt to AGF, especially since this is a new user? Their statement clearly indicates why they're here. If you think they're misusing AN/I, maybe you should explain to them, instead of just complaining and criticizing. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you're referring to AstatineEnjoyer, they're not that new, and although my comments were not warm and fuzzy, they weren't in the least bit nasty. If they are going to make use of the administrative noticeboards, they should follow the instructions. And I still maintain that this should not have been brought here AND that the reported user's edits were vandalism. Anyway, I have nothing more to say. If the reported user persists, they will be blocked; if not, just one more vandal who decided to stop after being warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am so sorry about this. I thought, between the name (Veveknight) and the content being edited (VeVe) that it was something bigger. Next time something like this happens I'll just revert and continue on. Well, first, I'm gonna go down to the fish shop a buy a nice trout. Good day to you all. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

IP 70.55.158.220 placing "Aztec mythology" at start of "See also" section on many articles

This IP user seems to have created a template "Aztec mythology" and now be placing it at inappropriate locations on many articles, such as the head of "See also" sections. For the example on my watchlist which drew it to my attention see my recent reversion of Codex Vaticanus B. (In that particular case I had an additional reason for querying its inclusion at all (see my edit summary there), but that is perhaps a different matter.)

Might this need a review and action?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

These seems to be good faith edits. They don't seem to be edit warring or really even being disruptive, even if they're misplacing a template. Furthermore, it would be forgivable for a layperson to mix up, e.g. the Mixtec and the Aztec, or for a relatively interested person to consider the codices of the former as analogous to the latter. This doesn't seem like it warrants any action; or even review, to be quite frank. Why bring this up here instead of on their talk page? Seems like overkill. WP:BITE. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 13:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

My worry is their location within the articles of the template, e.g. head of "see also" sections, which is certainly incorrect. It's on several tens of articles (so far...). You are far better acquainted than I with the procedures to follow, and (very likely) what tools to apply to correct the errors. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to comment that there placement in the See Also section was problematic, especially when expanded. I suggest trying to talk with the editor first, to see if you can get them to understand their mistake. If you can hopefully they can help with any cleanup required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I very nearly commented myself but wanted to give the OP the opportunity to discuss with them. I do believe they should be given the chance to fix the problematic placement. --ARoseWolf 13:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, I am not even remotely acquainted with procedures or what tools to use. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record the IP did not create {{Aztec Mythology}}, that template's history goes back to '09. Try talking to them on their talk page about the proper placement, I'm sure they would be happy to oblige. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected the placement in all the article effected (it was only a couple of dozen or so), and left a message on the IP editors talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted: Thanks for the info about its creation.

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for fixing the original problem. Very much appreciated. I was just about to come here and credit you with the fix anyway!

Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia could use a "Find a gnome" service. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A Gnoticeboard, if you will. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Gnnn... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY editor Yokubjon Juraev

User Yokubjon Juraev has been engaging in constant edit warring behaviour, 3RR violations, advocacy, and adding poorly sourced content to wikipedia. After noticing some edits they made to Old Turkic, I went and cleaned up some content that didn't align with the sources it was citing (note: I was too heavy handed in my handling of some of the citations and I think that the initial revert with a comment on their talk page to me was warranted) changing the name of a language away from WP:COMMONNAME and misrepresenting the claims of a source. After seeing that I dug through some of their recent edits to see if any similar issues persisted:



• Changing “Xinjiang” to “East Turkistan” in an article about an event in Xinjiang, China

• Adding in a source that does not make the same claim it’s linked to then edit warring over it

• Lots of unsourced content being added to various articles

plus a long and storied history of edit warring on language articles. I think there’s a pretty core issue with this person’s presence here; they do seem to be putting in a lot of effort to clean up articles in some genuinely helpful ways, but it doesn’t seem like they’re here to build an encyclopedia, rather their stated purpose for being here on their user page is:



”I am staunchly (maybe aggressively!) committed to reviving Uzbek language and saving every word of it from falling into the category of “archaic” or “rarely used words”.”

Couple that with their edit warring over Uzbek and other Turkic language articles, and particularly combined with a history of poor quality edits and citations and an openly stated agenda and I think this problem is beyond needing yet another AN3 discussion. Warrenmck (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the rest as I haven't looked into it, but I really hope that we don't consider "committed to the preservation of a language" to be WP:NOTHERE. After all, we have many versions of Wikipedia in declining, minority, and low-native-speaker languages. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Having dealt with this person before, multiple people have explained to them about citations and references and they still don't seem to get it. Qiushufang (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's an important distinction between someone editing on a topic they are passionate about (which plenty of us here do), and someone editorializing articles to reflect a reality they'd rather see, such as subbing in "East Turkistan" for "Xinjiang" in articles about events in China. At that point someone's stated goal of being "aggressively" committed to a specific cause warrants a look in a different light. Warrenmck (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

IP 2A00:23EE:12D8:1AD3:C5A:E471:E275:7AE7 vandalism on Appleton Academy

This IP 2A00:23EE:12D8:1AD3:C5A:E471:E275:7AE7 keeps vandalising this school page Appleton Academy despite being partially blocked. Would it be appropriate to add the page to the partial block? Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that the /36 range behind that individual IP address is just simply blocked from account creation only (specified non-editing actions), rather than partially blocked from editing any pages. Pinging @Zzuuzz:, the admin who made that block, for clarification, and for if we could make the AC block into a p-block for the Appleton Academy page or not. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and the response. Yes this range block is a highly specialised checkuser block to prevent some chronic account creation abuse. It's almost certainly of no use to anyone except checkusers. Serious reminder when you see these weirdly articulated checkuser blocks: stop, read, think, consult. Piggy-backing them is rarely a good idea. As for the Appleton Academy vandalism, as we say at WP:AIV where this should have been reported, it was a good report at the time of the report but is now stale. It seems to have stopped. I also guess if it were to continue much then semi-protection would be more appropriate, though a /64 block might also work. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)