Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Personal attacks

I've been trying to reach consensus on the Talk:Gina Carano page under "Jewish bankers tweet", but one editor user:Sangdeboeuf keeps posting personal attacks against me. I left a polite note on his page when he started being rude/confrontational, then a warning when he made the first personal attack, then a final warning when he made another personal attack. He has now made a third. He deleted the note/warnings; a cursory examination of edit summaries on his talk page indicates he has deleted other warnings on other issues from other editors in the past, and may be a habitual offender trying to skirt warning guidelines. Other editors on the page are being helpful, so I'm going to keep trying to work with them. Gershonmk (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."

On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."

Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [1][2] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [3] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has a long-term habit of disruptive uncooperative editing, especially via extreme WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDHT by claiming no one else presented policy-compliant points, constant demands that other editors WP:SATISFY them, continuing to WP:FILIBUSTER when not satisfied, misusing policy to suit their ends, and even attacks.

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [4] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [5] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([6], [7], & [8]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [9][10] and have been uncivil. [11]

Relatively brief discussion at Talk:Latinx where all these behaviors, as well as their obvious tendentiousness to keep out a source they don't like, are on full display. And the same IDHT, misuse of policy, tendentiousness, and FILIBUSTER are equally visible lower on the same page, where CorbieVreccan also told them to stop edit warring and WP:DROPTHESTICK early on.

Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [12] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [13]

See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [14]

I'm aware I've linked to discussions, not just diffs, but the misconduct is such that a single diff often doesn't really explain it. I trust that if admins look at those discussions, they will clearly see the behaviors I've described. This user cannot be allowed to think these are acceptable behaviors and need to be clearly told what the consequences are for such editors. They are driving other editors away from their pet topics, which I suspect is the point (WP:OWN). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) added a bit Crossroads ^-talk- 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

• 9 November 2020, American politics: [15]
• 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [16]
• 2 December 2018, American politics: [17]
• 5 August 2018, BLP: [18]
• 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [19]

Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [20][21] This one was very nearly a violation: [22]

At ANI previously, was warned about edit warring and disruptive tagging. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [23] is not a personal attack? This [24] much like this [25] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [26] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [27][28] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The attempts of you both to push a 'both sides' whataboutist narrative are quite transparent. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [29] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [30] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

  This sort of stuff is also pretty obviously the nature of Sangdeboeuf's problems here generally: if you do not agree with Sandeboeuf on a view that this editor feel socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy, so Sangdeboeuf will harangue, insult, and browbeat you in hopes that you run away or at least that you might seem discredited to other editors in the discussion (to the extent they can wade through all of Sangdeboeuf's repetitive ranting). The fact that this technique generally does not actually work is immaterial; it's still anti-collaborative battlegrounding that is corrosive to the project and stressful to Sangdeboeuf's victims.

  If this ANI fails to conclude with any action: Given that Sangdeboeuf's disruptive patterns have a strong tendency to cross the lines of two WP:AC/DS topics at once (modern American politics, and gender/sexuality), we should probably just ensure that the editor has {{Ds/alert}} for each of these topics, within the last year (I see from above that this is so, notified of both in October 2020 or later), and take any further such incidents to WP:AE for quicker action. (Just put the evidence up front without making people ask for it, and put it in newer-to-older order.) ANI tends not to be very useful for this sort of thing, because it turns into back-and-forth blathering (AE won't tolerate much of that), and because of the "I agree with your viewpoint so will excuse all your behavior" attitude on the part of too many in the ANI peanut gallery. The AE admins are generally better able to see that a majority of editors liking a viewpoint has nothing to do whether particular behavior in furtherance of that viewpoint is permissible.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  I already pointed out where I struck the first comment after Gershonmk complained about it. The third comment has nothing to do with anyone's personal point of view, unless there's a legitimate point of view in which the various iterations of Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers/financiers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism (e.g. [31][32][33][34][35]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [36][37][38][39] denying the obvious reality that their proposed text was directly about the subject of the BLP, and therefore subject to stricter sourcing requirements. Such behavior is also a form of disruption. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even if it's not actually true", then I guarantee you are going to receive sanctions, probably sooner than later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Describing your pattern of battleground behavior ... requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. That's exactly what you just did: if you do not agree with San[g]deboeuf on a view that this editor feel[s] socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy. Unfalsifiable claims sure do come in handy when you want to accuse someone of acting in bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Again: Observing your behavior and that it is anti-collaborative, uncivil, and disruptive requires no assumptions about your faith, only observation that is what it is. I in fact believe your are acting entirely in good faith, of the WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH sort. An apparent belief that you are fighting the good fight doesn't magically make your behavior civil, collaborative, and constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects – where is the observable evidence of me WP:FILIBUSTERING anything at the talk page where Crossroads made that accusation? Note that WP:FILIBUSTERING specifically means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, not one you or Crossroads happen to disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is just more WP:WIKILAWYER hand-waving. You cannot evade the community finding you disruptive by trying to nitpick over exact wording in guidelines and essays and policies. If you are being disruptive, you will be made to stop being disruptive. If you don't think FILIBUSTER applies, then try BLUDGEON, TE, etc. There is no question that you are disruptive when it comes to this topic area. I'll be "happy" to pore over details of a large number of diffs of your behavior if this ends up at AE or ArbCom, where that level of analysis is actually useful. At ANI, it's a waste of time. PS: In case you think you can start the BLUDGEON behavior again, you should recall that the last time we were discussing that I warned against it and pointed to someone blocked or T-banned for it, right on the same page the same day. The same is true this time around; see #Bludgeoning (Bus stop) just below, in which someone got outright site-banned for it. I encourage you to learn from this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC); PS added 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  At ANI, it's a waste of time. How very convenient for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  To the contrary, it's a stressy ass-pain, in which we'll have one energy-sucking pile of drama only to have it do nothing useful, and then we'll get to do it all over again later at a more practical venue later. ANI has turned into pretty much a useless waste of time (and worse, just a noise factory), except for dealing with obvious nuts, socks, trolls, and spammers. It is no longer capable of handling issues relating to behavior of long-term editors. But be careful what you ask for. Since your recalcitrance and game-playing indicate a high probability you'll end up at AE or RfArb soon enough, I've already started this diff research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Everybody needs a hobby. Have fun. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  You can't have it both ways; either you want to be diffed in detail or you don't. More to the point, see first law of holes. The very fact that WP is our hobby but your behavior (and your own demands in regard to concerns about your behavior) necessitates putting that constructive hobby on hold to deal with your disruption, and you think this is funny, is in and of itself reason enough for remedies against you. WP thrives on collaborative and neutral-minded editing, and is harmed by "just try to stop me" gadfly behavior, which becomes more and more difficult to distinguish from everyday trolling the longer it continues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and you think this is funny... More not-mind reading, I see. In fact I welcome any opportunity to improve my behavior. But that requires actual evidence of poor behavior. My comment about it being "convenient" was in regard to your feeling that presenting diffs here is not worth your time, which conveniently frees you from having to back up your vague WP:ASPERSIONS. There comes a point where you have to put up or shut up, lest you become disruptive yourself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[40]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• These are not examples of personal attacks, and Sangdeboeuf is disputing the reliability of sources used in the article about Gina Carano. There should probably be more discussion on the sources used, and less fingerpointing. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just wanted to note this WP:UNCIVIL and accusatory comment from Crossroads towards Sangdeboeuf a while back: [41] WanderingWanda (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged AE action. WanderingWanda, notwithstanding that, I would strongly recommend you refrain from publishing any and all Crossroads-related sleuthing in matters where you are otherwise uninvolved (unless egregious). Thanks in advance. P.S. noting that I have not reviewed this thread closely, for whatever that's worth (basically, am just here to announce the aforementioned ECP action). El_C 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• The diffs raised in the initial complaint, while terse, do not quite rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't think anything useful is going to come out of the additional feuding between Sangdeboeuf and Crossroads here at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am failing to see anything that would result in a block. I would however propose a (voluntary) interaction ban between Crossroads and Sangdeboeuf. Other editors can weigh in for content disputes. That said, even in the ANI report here, while Crossroads has brought up legitimate conduct violations, their evident grudge and omission of past interactions with Sangdeboeuf makes it harder for me to form an opinion. Shushugah (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for that on either of us. Such things make editing more difficult for those who have them and isn't warranted - reporting what one believes to be problematic behavior isn't a grudge. I am not sure what "omission of past interactions" means. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis and tagging

SoyokoAnis is a new editor who is overly eager and engaging in areas they lack the competence to edit in, resulting in nothing short of disruption. They have been given ample guidance by admins and experienced editors and ignored advice and direct warnings, even though they've acknowledged them. They don't appear to be interested in actually learning from their mistakes as they continue to make them and double down when called out.

• Following Ferrets final warning to stop inappropriate CSD tags, they tagged this A1, which very clearly does not apply.
• Then we have this lackluster response to an inappropriate page move.
• Tag bombing one minute, two minutes and three minutes after article creation and doubled down after I warned them.
• Tag bombing 2 minutes after creation with a completely inappropriate tag
• Tagging a1/a7 where A1 is clearly not applicable, just minutes after creation and after their tag bombing of maintenance templates just 4 minutes after creation
• tag bombing minutes after creation, while the creator was clearly actively editing and I'd argue this tag isn't even applicable
• disruptive and non-applicable tagging of a stub
• silly tags 4 minutes after creation
• very clearly not a1
• not a1

This isn't to say that the articles they're tagging don't have problems, just that the immediate rush to put tags that are often inappropriate is disruptive and this isn't even a comprehensive list, just a random recent selection. Combined with their responses and continued disruption, I am led to believe that the only option to prevent further disruption is a lengthy block no less than a year or two, if not indefinite as they appear to lack the competence to edit in the areas they do and do not have the maturity to know when they're in over their head. Hopefully a lengthy block will allow them to gain perspective and mature. CUPIDICAE💕 12:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also this attempt to circumvent @Billinghurst's good faith undeletion of a page for off-wiki recovery, where she then was preparing to submit the draft again. I support a CIR block at this time. She was also the one who pushed repeatedly on NASCARFan, against and in opposition of the advice of many experienced editors, and caused this. Since then she's made several edits about how she wants to be admin, including red-cat'ing her userpage and messaging others for mentorship. I fear her patrolling/tagging shows that she's read some RFA guide and is trying to tick the boxes. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There was also this stuff culminating in this. If community remedies are indeed needed, possibly instead a ban on any kind of maintenance/backspace activity (including tagging articles) would be a lesser and possibly acceptable solution? I'm not sure if SoyokoAnis has much interest in writing articles, but if so such a ban might help them develop their editing without causing the above issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally was going to suggest a ban but given their inability to take any sort of criticism and reflect on it, I don't see this as a viable option. There is also this request which is problematic because they're really just not reading the room (or the directions.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Should I just stop tagging articles altogether? If so, please listen to what I have to say. What is the point of the New Pages Feed if I am gonna keep getting warned for using it? This is starting to get really annoying, it's in the new pages feed I'm gonna see it and see if it has issues and tag it. Most of the articles you stated still didn't fix their issues. Why do you keep coming after me for using the feed? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis Your tone deaf response to the concerns here is precisely why I think you should be blocked and demonstrates your inability to collaborate and listen to constructive criticism. It's pure disruption. CUPIDICAE💕 13:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the RFA nomination, I just wanted to help someone. I didn't know you had to be on Wikipedia for years and have lots of contributions to help. Either way, if it stops anyone from coming at me for tag warnings then I'll just stop tagging to avoid any more issues. I'm sorry. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The core issue here is that you aren't listening to experienced editors. For that RFA, numerous experienced editors advised you and the RFA Nom not to do it, that it would go badly, and said why, including the tenure and other experience. And you continued to push the editor to agree to the RFA, completely ignoring everyone. Your response to every warning thus far has been the same. People tell you not to do tagging, you continue in the exact same fashion with no change. This is why people keep "coming at you", because you continue to do the same things. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked from the article space for 2 weeks, having done so prior to seeing the user's response above, however — which, unfortunately, doesn't inspire too much confidence, though hopefully, that is something which can also be overcome. El_C 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I remember the incident ferret describes that I was looking for (this).

The core issue here is an editor who is, without doubt, acting in good faith but does not quite understand the communal norms around here. We see this evidenced in this diff, where the editor says they've read the policies and dislike being treat as if they're clueless. The issue, of course, is that being able to apply policy well (or, at least, in the ways that the community wants it applied) is separate from reading policy. I feel like in such a case it's worth the editor asking themselves why they edit. Without an answer to that question, one can end up in the endless hole of policy enforcement without an overarching goal. Which manifests in, for example, the redundant tagging of stubs evidenced by Prax. However, I also see Prax's view that perhaps adequate self-reflection is not possible in this case (per WP:CIR), though I continue to hope that it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty sad (in the 'upsetting' sense) case for everyone involved. Overzealous tagging/rejection is one of the most damaging things possible on Wikipedia; effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted is a way to guarantee that unless they happen to have someone experienced in the project guiding them along (and there are ~3,000 active Wikipedians compared to ~40,000,000 "people who ever made an account", so you tell me the odds...), they will leave and never come back. (Or if you're very lucky come back in a decade.) SoyokoAnis is one of the people who managed to avoid being strangled in the crib, but is hitting another common wall of getting in too deep too early and attracting people's ire. A block for 'a year or two' is a permaban more thoroughly than any actual permaban would ever be -- few people who aren't already 'vested contributors' will sit and wait for that timer to expire rather than go find something else to do -- but there are very severe CIR concerns (competence is required // competence is acquired // but no one can sit around forever to wait for the acquisition) and any given tagbomber is probably a net negative. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion of a year or two was that they will hopefully mature with time. They obviously would have WP:SO too. This doesn't stop them from editing other projects that may be more suitable to their learning ability. I also don't see this (a block) as a detriment to the project if I'm being honest. They've said they don't have an interest in writing articles and thus far they have very few useful contributions. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a complicated and unfortunate matter. My thought on block duration is that if SoyokoAnis is going to be blocked for a much longer duration than she currently is -- which is a possible outcome -- it might be more honest, if that makes sense, to indef rather than a 1-2 year block. Both have essentially the same outcome (someone either leaves forever or comes back a very long time later, at similar probability), but the indef block is probably more open to appeals and the SO, while an extremely long limited-duration block is an odd mix of "we aren't showing you the door, but we clearly don't want you here". My comment with regards to detriments to the project is more or less agreeing with you; new user retention goes both ways. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted" Honestly, some of these articles are uncited stubs, and SoyokoAnis has a point in seeing them as problematic. I am more concerned with why the editor is adding tags to articles that are in the process of being written. No article can be considered up to standard within minutes of its creation. Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this CIR issue may spread to AfD [42]; they've also attempted to sign up at AfC [43]; and they are giving advice at Teahouse [44].  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Second Comment: We have to do something, the temp block below is necessary, but I've been thinking about this and I would really like to see the community find a way to help this editor contribute productively. They clearly want to contribute, I think everything they are doing is in good faith, they just need help. I just don't feel good about this and I don't think anyone else does either. I'm not throwing stones at anyone, but I think many editors were aware of this problem and if some kind of helpful intervention had come sooner, we wouldn't be here. Yes they were warned, yes they should have asked for help, but we all could do better in these types of situations.

I know there is a problem, but I really hope we can find a good solution that hopefully keeps this editor. Again I'm not casting stones, Wikipedia collectively does a shitty job at developing and retaining editors, which is something the community should have a broad discussion about; if we want quality editing, we need to invest in developing quality editors.

SoyokoAnis, would you be open to some kind of mentorship to work on building and creating articles?  // Timothy :: talk  03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue I urge you to read through the talk page messages she has removed for the full history, if you have not. While maybe not every message left to her was the utmost gentle, she has received nothing but relatively polite handwritten warnings and explanations, somehow avoiding a single templated warning. -- ferret (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

ferret, I know a site ban is justified (even before I saw the history). Perhaps a ban from everything but adding sourced content to existing articles? If they have shown productive editing at the end of a defined period of time, we can leave the ban and let them continue adding sourced content to existing articles. If they are not showing productive editing or if problems continue, the site ban can be implemented. But perhaps I need to be saved from my own good intentions by more experienced editors.  // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Block extended, converted to sitewide

In light of these additional concerns from multiple users (involving additional namespaces), I've extended the block to 3 months and converted it to sitewide. Honestly, I'm wary to block for any longer at this time, but other admins should feel free to adjust this block action in any way they see fit (no notification or consultation with me is required). El_C 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: probationary mentorship offer

I told Prax earlier that nothing was set in stone about beefing up the sanction, and due to the above concerns, have done so. But I feel it is only fair, in this case, to also do so the other way — nerf if it calls for it. The notion of probationary mentorship, as opposed to one faced by an unsanctioned user, is that the mentor's focus largely fulfils the role of consulting on whether this or that is borderline-sanctionable activity. It doesn't matter that Timothy isn't an admin —they can turn to the noticeboard or me, personally, for any enforcement action— this is something that I feel he is qualified to handle. And he seems, well, not inherently opposed to the idea (direct link). I'm inclined to let both of them refine the formula, bring it back here for discussion, and then we go from there. But my first impulse is that this seems workable; that harmonizing all that energy, without the dissonance, is an undertaking worth pursuing. Thoughts? El_C 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As El C said, I have made an offer to mentor SoyokoAnis with the condition that they focus solely on content improvement and creation and abstain from everything else. You can see the offer and their response in the above link from El C. I should disclose I have not mentored anyone before, I know this will be a challenge.

Since there is a site ban in place, there needs to be a consensus for it to be lifted and a indef topic ban put in its place. If there is a consensus to switch to a topic ban, it should be clear this is a final opportunity and any further disruption or violation of the topic ban will result in a site ban. I am open to any revisions to the conditions stated.

SoyokoAnis if a consensus emerges to replace the site ban with a topic ban you'll be notified and we can begin.  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This was not a siteban, but a normal admin action only. That said, I welcome further input into the matter, and see no reason to rush this. El_C 21:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As a random passer-by, this seems like a good proposal. --JBL (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Same, seems like a reasonable way to deal with it. Given the strict "expand articles only" scope, it'd be easy to re-block if the don't stay within those bounds - but I do think she can become a productive editor, just needs more experience. Regardless, it's worth a shot. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the mentorship plan if SoyokoAnis is willing to learn. I know TimothyBlue is suited for the mentor role :-) Vikram Vincent 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

• Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IPs edit warring to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery.

In honor of the subject matter, I suggest that they should be homeopathic deletions.   :)  

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: While I understand the desire for promptness, was this really necessary with a request already pending at RFPP and the thread at FTN (I've merge your recent addition with it, if it doesn't bother)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't merge the two sections. They cover completely different aspects. One is about Homoeopathic Surgery, the other is IPs edit warring to overturn a valid deletion discussion.

The disruption continued after the RFPP. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just add my two cents. When I reverted, it was for no other reason than an editor (in this case an ip) re-adding unsourced material, which as per the policy of WP:BURDEN, is not allowed. I like Guy Macon's humor, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this related to homeopathic A&E? Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. El_C 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I got pinged here. I found Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. It was, not right then, being used as an advert for schools. I couldn't see why a single sentence was required so merged it to homeopathy. El_C you may also want to protect Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery but that may count as pre-emptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, CambridgeBayWeather. I feel like I've reached my preemptive protection quota, for now, with Jill Biden and Jewish space lasers (pew pew!) — hey, that's a cool mix! //Recharging mana. El_C 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. That's getting close to me being involved. Plus I don't like pre-emptive and / or (note how I followed the MOS there) indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I hear the homeopathic surgery courses are highly watered down. EEng 08:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidents involving User:Sundayclose

I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, focusing on relatively simple improvements to articles I happened to be reading. Recently I made what I thought was a non-controversial improvement [45] to the Wayne Williams article. User:Sundayclose reverted the edit with no edit summary or discussion on the article talk page [46] and added a warning [47] to my talk page. I tried to discuss the matter with him [48] but his replies were not responsive to my points and almost immediately became abusive [49] [50] [51] and everything has been downhill from there, although after I made a fresh proposal on the talk page [52] and received some reinforcement from User:Anastrophe (with whom I had no prior contact) we did at least achieve a good and apparently stable outcome with that article.

But before and after that result, User:Sundayclose has directed many demands, threats, and insults against me [53] and has gone on a rampage of reverting recent edits of mine [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] in an exhibition of spite, revenge, and sheer vandalism. I believe all five of those reverts were unjustified, particularly in being deliberate violations of WP:NOCITE.

I think if you look through his edit history you will that the vast majority of his edits are constructive, but you will also find many other incidents where he has made harmful edits, mostly unexplained and unjustified reverts like the one with which he first engaged me, including four reverts in two days on the Carl Gugasian article [59] [60] [61] [62] without explaining on the talk page his issues with material he was removing (in this case, my issue with his reverts was that he swept up good-faith contributions by editors who weren't even the actual target of his wrath). He seems to target IP users and is prone to throwing warnings and threats on talk pages even when the user was clearly making good-faith edits. I also found many more examples of his edits that harmed Wikipedia by removing good-faith contributions from other editors, but I did not attempt to correct any more of them once I realized he doesn't respond well to criticism.

I've made a very serious effort to stay polite throughout this whole thing, but User:Sundayclose seems bent on making it impossible for me to contribute to Wikipedia. If I'm in the wrong here, in whole or in part, I welcome the correction, because I want to be a good contributor and not a problem for anyone. But I think User:Sundayclose must be told to cease this pattern of abusive editing. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

67.188.1.213, your edit summary "Want to go for four?" makes clear you're aware you are edit warring. 3RR isn't a right. Also, you followed Sundayclose to Carl Gugasian and then have the chutzpah to accuse them of hounding you. Keep that up and you'll be blocked. If an edit is challenged for not having a source... find a source! You can consider this your final warning, unless another admin would care to block you already.

Sundayclose, IP editors are people too. Please be less confrontational and don't go overboard on the templates and rhetoric when you're in an editing dispute. Fences&Windows 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, neither of you edited Talk:Carl Gugasian. You need to stop reverting each other and both making revenge edits, and start talking to each other with respect. Fences&Windows 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the original issue at Wayne Williams, the IP's edit was good and well-explained, and I agree with the IP that Sundayclose was aggressive and non-responsive. I had a similar recent experience with Sundayclose: a lot of combativeness and repeated failure to engage with the arguments raised by other editors. (I have not looked more deeply into the present question than reading the IP's talk-page and the original reverted diff.) --JBL (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with the people critical of Sundayclose. I myself noticed some problematic contributions. There is this editor by the name of Barbaro Reyes Cho (who may now actually be a sock) who has had the vast majority of their mostly constructive edits reverted by Sundayclose. Thisis just one of them. I almost filed a report myself when I saw Sundayclose open up the editor's talk page with the harshest possible warning, but decided against it when I saw that the other editor in question may be a sock. Now that it appears that they are doing this to other editors, I feel that some action might need to be taken. I haven't seen much of Sundayclose in recent weeks, but I am still sure that I assessed the situation correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, you may restore constructive edits made by a blocked or banned as you see fit - you take on responsibility for the content. However, mass reversion of block or ban evasion is permitted: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule", see WP:EVASION. Fences&Windows 01:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I'm aware of WP:EVASION. This complaint by the IP just caught me by surprise. I had no idea that Sundayclose was doing this to non-socks. For the record, I don't plan on reverting that Barbaro guy's edits, because I am almost certain that he is a sock. I'm uneasy but tolerant about Sundayclose being aggressive with socks, but I am not okay with what seems like them following other editors around. I am pretty busy, and I don't have time to stick my nose in complicated areas, but I feel that Sundayclose may need to tone down what they are doing. Good night. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Sundayclose, please don't jump the gun on reverting before SPI is complete and/or the account is blocked and please read and acknowledge what Scorpions13256 had said here. Fences&Windows 10:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: I acknowledge what has been said here. As a point of information, but not an attempt for an excuse, I will point out for other editors that Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster (one sock is Barbaro Reyes Cho) who has used multiple IPs located in or near Tulare, California. The WP:DUCKTEST is usually obvious. The edits are to the very same articles (usually pertaining to school shootings, mass shooting, and other violent crimes; some to trains and railroads). I have always checked the location of the IPs to confirm. If one of Cadeken's socks is blocked (and sometimes even when they haven't been blocked), the IPs emerge to make the edits. Sometimes in a weak attempt to cover up socking, a Cadeken sock will revert one of the IPs with an edit summary similar to "unsourced" or "block evasion", but then the edit is later reinstated. It's a never-ending process. I even tried to reason with a Cadeken sock to not edit for six months then attempt the WP:Standard offer; that had no effect. Although I will refrain from removing those edits, I think many of them will fall through the cracks because it's understandably difficult at SPI to get a confirmation of socking by an IP. Again, I'm not trying to make any excuses for myself, just pointing out a problem that other editors should be aware of. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS violations again at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 1) and RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)

Following an absolute pile on that has included death threats, the talkpage of at least one of the articles being reldev'd and a number of users being blocked [63], User talk:Caroline Quentin, User talk:Irin161, User talk:2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:1D2F:DF1A:5351:C2AD) the page protection preventing the edit warring on the two pages has now expired and multiple editors have reverted back to edits which are not supported by MOS:ACCESS, MOS:DTAB, MOS:TABLE including gross violations of MOS:COLOUR, WP:SYNTHESIS of show results which cannot/are not supported by third-party reliable sources and ignoring repeated requests to engage with discussion.

See the mess that was the talkpage for Drag Race UK (series 2). I am at a loss for what to do here - I was under the impression that MOS was not negotiable.

• This edit by Ethan MP, though to be fair they have not previously been warned for making these changes.
• This edit by 2a01:4c8:c8c:5d55:7d57:5c29:4fa7:1d98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adds information that is solely dictated by colour and a gross violation of MOS:COLOUR
• This edit by Messinwithbruce who has previously been warned by someone for BRD and left an edit summary that stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF ("Needs to be consistent with ALL other seasons. Either change all of them or don’t change them at all.") Note that Messinwithbruce also uploaded unsourced/improperly sourced copyright images relating to this subject and has previously been blocked for unsourced/poorly sourced editing
• This edit by 2a01:4c8:c8c:5d55:7d57:5c29:4fa7:1d98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that smacks of its fine no one has complained before so its fine per their edit summary "They are not rules, just guidelines. This is the format that has worked for many years, and nobody has had an issue with. The majority of articles on Wiki use abbreviations, so if you change this you’ll need to change all of those too".

1. Tagging Billwebster91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who previously engaged in similar edit warring and failed to respond to warnings [64], [65]
2. Tagging Thijslandsmeer who also reverted MOS changes and was warned here

The same situation happened at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_5) with a variety of editors. There was a discussion on that talkpage too: Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_5)#Accessible_Table_Format that has fallen on deaf ears.

To confirm there are several issues:

1. Wikipedia editors treating reality TV shows like current news and therefore creating WP:FANCRUFT tables full of WP:SYNTHESIS ("high" and "low" positions are mentioned in the show but "safe" with/without critiques come from individual' editors interpretation and are not reliably sourced.
2. There are multiple violations of MOS:COLOUR which impact visually impaired users icluding the use of multiple shades of the same colour (light red, dark red), failure to use high contrast e.g. white text on dark background and use of greens and reds in the same table which impact negatively on colourblind editors. There is also issues with colour being used as the only means of conveying information
3. Failure to adhere with MOS:ACCESS, MOS:ABBREV, MOS:TABLE.

Everyone who reverts says all the articles need consistency but there's never any policy or guidance reasons given even though multiple times I have shown how the current status does not meet wiki guidlines. Note all this refers to a previous report filed earlier this week too - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_of_talk_pages_and_threats Users: RandomCanadian, Deepfriedokra, Firefly have all been involved in the discussions on the talkpage - helping for firefight the situation. Have notified all involved parties. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Messinwithbruce now blocked for edit warring to get accessibility-violating content in. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have protected both articles again. --Jayron32 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  This editor's userpage was deleted as an attack page; they've been blocked before for BLP violations; I see a bunch of edit warring warnings; and now this ... seems to me like a candidate for a TBAN from BLPs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What a silly charade this is turning in to. I'm honestly not sure of the best path forward here, given the strength of feeling from some editors around having these incredibly detailed, borderline fancrufty tables in articles, and (more concerningly) edit warring over the minutiae therein and rushing to update them when episodes air. I think we may need a broader RfC on such things to get clear consensus on (a) whether to have them (personally I would say 'no'), and (b) the general shape of them if we must have them and ensuring they comply with accessibility standards. The rushing-to-update is adequately covered elsewhere, but I fear without a clear consensus to point to we'll forever be pushing a boulder up a hill against those who wish to cram tables into reality TV articles and wasting sysop time. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

On a content note, I agree that the Drag Race tables are super crufty and a flashpoint for disruption. I would be more than happy to see them all removed, or at least seriously reexamined/reformed. I don't know quite enough about how the show works to propose a solution, but would love to see some kind of RfC on it. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of the sentiments about this. I think there should be a wide ranging RFC supporting accessible tables because to be honest it applies all of reality tv. Also I think there should be proper sanctions for those who don't follow MOS... its very clear and shouldn't be up for debate. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think sanctioning people who don't follow most of the MOS is a good idea, after all much of MOS is nitpicking nonsense that doesn't relate to the real world at all (and sometimes actively makes our articles look daft), but ACCESS is the one that is definitely an exception to that. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to confirm - I agree - I meant specifically on accessibility. I don't have an issue with sparing use of colours but its so tricky to get people to follow the rules! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• There aren't many things that irritate me more than people who violate ACCESS after being repeatedly told why they shouldn't do it. I admit to having a lower tolerance of this that many other disruptive editing practices. Also, these reality show articles simply look hideous and unprofessional. The tables are bad enough but the multi-coloured text andd violent pink borders in the episode list look like a Geocities website from around 1997. Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 1) (which I've also just fixed the table access issues on) is even worse. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not people's private webpages and I wouldn't object to sending everything monochrome and saying "sorry - you simply can't be trusted to use colours". Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair, colour issues don't just affect colour-blind users. Looking at a rainbow-coloured table is also annoying for anybody who has full vision too... As for crufty details (if we for a moment disregard that the whole of the table might be such a thing), even way back in 2013 (caution: massive colour misuse, too) there were some reservations about those, though apparently the fancruft somehow prevailed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: On second thought (bearing this example in mind): entirely agree with the "you simply can't be trusted to use colours" statement... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I’ll write up an RfC tomorrow on reality show article formatting and detail (e.g. do we want progress tables?). Hopefully we can get consensus to clean up the cruft and make them more accessible. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• IMO updating these shows week by week is like updating articles of football matches before they've finished, which is something we don't do. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Well we do update cricket matches mid-way through (at the innings break, or at the close of play each day if it's a first class game). But then again, cricket is a sport which requires patience, a virtue which, judging by persistent requests such as this one, those misusing WP as a repository for crufty fansite-material might be sorely lacking... Not that there isn't some valid encyclopedic content which can be written about these reality TV series (their cultural impact, and mostly how they are not reality...), but yeah to quote previous editors "blow by blow accounts" are unecessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This can probably be closed as Messinwithbruce is now blocked as a sock. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not everything is over. For examples there are still some instances of things like WP:CANVASS, see for ex. Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_(season_13)#UK_Series_2... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And now there's User:Ellis.o22 who is (very subtly, by wikilinking Ignorance) - [66] engaging in what clearly feels as a WP:PA and is entirely unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B

• 2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring, Undid Sourced edits on Abu Mohammad al-Julani and the connected edits on Template:Al-Qaeda Norschweden (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you do somthing about that IP? he is reverting sourced edits, did 3 reverts in a row, and might have political agenda Norschweden (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That guy is getting annoying, he doesn't provide sources, he just revertes sourced edits without any explaination Norschweden (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Ramanpanikar and CopyVio

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

---

User:Ramanpanikar is insistent on copy and pasting the material directly from the personal webpage of Reshma Thomas into article space. I've tried copyvio flags, edit notes, messages on talk page and finally, a warning template. None of those have gotten a response nor changed their behavior, so here we are. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, don't forget to use {{Copyvio-revdel}} to flag the offending revisions for deletion. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, I've protected the page, revdel'd all of the copyright violations, and indeffed the user for edit warring to add copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mazarin07

This editor has made personal attacks or at least makes no attempt to assume good faith.[67][68][69] JFW | T@lk 18:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting in bad faith is not a personal attack, of course. However, how would you call deleting important information in medical-related articles - by important information I mean those founded on clinical trials -, thus preventing people suffering of diseases to get the latest information? What are your moral standards, if any? Mazarin07 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL, and particularly read the message on your talk page from Sphilbrick. It is possible someone was mistaken and removed your edits when they weren't actual copyright violations on account of a Wikipedia mirror having the text and making it look like a copyvio; even so, you have to make more effort to resolve the disagreement civilly before accusing editors of bad faith and wrongdoing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you react like that at the first sign of disagreement then it becomes hard to work with you. (People are also less likely to listen to you if you react like that, which makes it harder to be heard even if you have a legitimate complaint.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mazarin07: I am really disappointed by your lack of insight. Being reverted is not a pleasant experience, but that does not mean that a revert was done "in bad faith". I have provided you with an explanation why the content you added was unsuitable for that article (WP:MEDRS in the main). I'd have thought this would have been sufficient to disabuse you of the notion that I reverted you just to annoy you.

Your appeal to morals sounds hollow if you simultaneously resort to abusive language. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mazarin07, calling someone a robot is a personal attack and is not appropriate behavior. Neither is making jabs at other editors' moral standards, as in your reply above. If this behavior continues, it will lead to blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

redact personal info

Hi! Can someone please have a look at Seema Samridhi and redact the personal info. The editor claims to be the husband of the subject. Vikram Vincent 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! That was fast! Vikram Vincent 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'd have a middle name, it'd probably be swift. Anyway, looks like the WP:OS team has now suppressed some of the worse problems. Some credits lost due to a mobile link (fixed!). Grr. El_C 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C unfortunate the Swift ain't your last name :D Vikram Vincent 07:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

<Insert $WIFT pun here> El_C 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:LouiseFeb1974 on BLPs

User:LouiseFeb1974 has continued to add contentious and unsourced or poorly sourced information to various biographies. They often include sources that have no mention of the subject. Recent examples: here and here. The editor has been warned by others on their talk page but has not responded, and they have been discussed on this board before. Can an administrator please take a look and see if it would be appropriate to block this editor from editing BLPs? 68.224.72.132 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I dealt with Louise before. It's another WP:ICANTHEARYOU case. I know Suffusion of Yellow is particularly concerned about these and urgently wanting action to make users aware of their talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Their edits aren't tagged as mobile. Desktop should display the usual "you have new messages" link at the top, unless there's something I don't know about. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I take that back. Just ran through all the skins, and the MinervaNeue and Timeless skins do not seem to show the banner. I don't know how popular those skins are (most people don't change defaults), and there's no way to find out what skin someone is using without asking them. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidents Regarding Uncivil behavior by User Warshy

Dear all,

In interactions with Warshy, Warshy made several less than civil comments NPA. As well as aspersions. Personal attacks As well as attacked another wikipedian Newmila.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I noticed this dispute about the article yesterday so will comment here. I see no direct personal attack above, but I agree that one of the edit summaries could have been more civil and that one of the above comments included too much possibly unsavory details as if it was posted on a forum. On the other hand Warshy is right that content disputes don't involve contacting editors privately by phone and that scholarly sources should be used for the article. They've also been on Wikipedia a long time editing many articles, not only that particular one, it would be a good idea to try to benefit from their experience. —PaleoNeonate – 09:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, "[o]n the other hand Warshy is right that content disputes don't involve contacting editors privately by phone and that scholarly sources should be used for the article." Where did that question arise? Firestar464 (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's very important but the invitation to use email (link is after redaction): Special:Permalink/1011705321#Opportunity for collaboration, the other invitation was Special:Permalink/1011603826#Opportunity for collaboration, it was actually for a Zoom conference, not phone, it seems, although phone numbers were shared. —PaleoNeonate – 13:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a new user/editor here, Ibadibam also already asked for help on his behalf on a different page. To me this user looks like a WP:SPA who is here to edit strictly for religious issues that are the interest of the religious organization he seems to belong to. In any case, his whole endeavor in the main page where we are interacting is to introduce religious POV to the subject. I have little patience for what I perceive as blatant religious POV. The entire history of his editing on that page should be looked at by uninvolved editors, as well as mine, of course, and the continuation of his alleged "overhaul" of the page should continue only under the guidance of editors and/or admins with experience in the religious POV area in Wikipedia. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll pipe up since I've been named...I agree that some of warshy's comments have been unnecessarily denigrating to Yaakov Wa.'s religious community and their beliefs. At the same time, Yaakov Wa. is clearly editing from that POV, to the detriment of the encyclopedia's neutrality. In terms of the edit warring, warshy is not being overly heavy-handed, nor is Yaakov Wa. editing in bad faith. I have found it difficult to follow this dispute due to the frequency and volume of edits by Yaakov Wa. While some of this editor's contributions are helpful, a great deal of them are not up to encyclopedic standards due to issues around verifiability, POV and layout. I think there's an opportunity for Yaakov Wa. to become a great wikipedian, but needs guidance on what is and isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia. As for the current dispute, there is too little productive discussion and too much edit warring to even understand what's happening. Ibadibam (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Navonedu

Current issue is no different than the earlier report which was made on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Navonedu's_unrepentant_disruption.

This user is still dedicated to thwarting any attempt made to improve Atif Aslam and is frequently terming any removal of his added puffery as "vandalism".[70][71] I am requesting an indef block for this clear-cut case of WP:CIR. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

After the above report, I have been reported by this user on the noticeboard that deals only with vandals. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Their reversions claiming 'vandalism' continue. Slywriter (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day ⋅

Convenience link - Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Please see the recent edit summaries to understand the problem. Escalating tit-for-tat COI edit warring, "outing" of people's real names - Could protect 30/500 and/or semi-protect, and block the warring parties, but I've no idea which version should be in place when the music stops - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jeez, what a mess. I've rev-deleted the edit summaries, ECP'd the page, moved it back to what I think is the right verion and removed what I think is the problematic section. Haven't blocked anyone, but since they're both SPAs on that article and not ECP'd they won't be editing anyway. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK, now I've been asked by User:MrsPhinch to restore to a different version, but now I'm looking at self-promo here, as what is apparently that user's name (or the name of someone they are editing in favour of) appears multiple times in that version of the article (mostly written by herself). Would appreciate more eyes here, tbh. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite pls check out the talk page as well, the last two sections there start with WP:OUTING, so should probably be revdel'd. Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's a pretty clear legal threat here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah - that's fairly unambiguous. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like there is an interpersonal feud among SPAs going back twelve years playing out on that article. I support ECP, and encourage uninvolved editors to watchlist the article as I have done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear that there are Ownership issues going on with MrsPhinch and that article, and a massive slew of SPAs and internecine feuding going on. One option for now is actually to semi-the article, that would solve the SPA and sockpuppet issues at an admitted risk of if one side has long term accounts they would be sole editors of it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then it needs some good-faith editors to put it on their watchlists, as Cullen328 has done. I groaned inwardly when I saw the title because I thought that this would be a battle between people with different opinions about abortion, but see that it is simply some childish playground fight that can be settled by following independent reliable sources. Why do people have to carry such things over to the world's foremost encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Thedefender35 egregious and continued improper use of warning templates in inappropriate situations

Over the past few days, the user User:Thedefender35 has continually misused warning templates on user talk pages, creating confusion and difficulty for RPCs. Diff:[72] Multiple users have attempted to warn this user, to no avail.

The user has attempted to copy-paste RedWarn templates using the visual editor, resulting in a horrifying amalgamation of wikitext and unsigned warnings. This user appears to not care whether or not the user was previously warned, instead opting to create a new section in the user's talk page with a title saying "STOP RIGHT NOW".

Ordinarily, I might go straight to for this type of thing (I'm confident this would result in speedy action) if it weren't for the fact that I am almost certain the user is operating in good faith. The user has made multiple attempts to request coaching from editors and clearly would like to make a difference against vandalism. I'm not entirely sure where this post belongs so let me know if I need to repost it on a different noticeboard. Catalyzzt (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let this go for a day or two to see if a sincere effort is made to improve. The problem, in a nutshell is that this is a new editor, who doesn't yet have a good appreciation of the basics but wants to lay the law down to others. They may learn, but they need to get on it quickly or it may be a painful learning experience. Deb (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel partially responsible. I saw Thedefender35's edit summary here ("last warning before I report you"), and posted on their talk page about warning on user talk pages instead of in edit summaries. (I also recommended that they find a trainer at WP:CVUA) Thedefender35 then began posting warnings on talk pages inappropriately. I tried to give them some direction (this diff, threads "Question about warning" and "Warning"), but stopped when I felt like my approach was unproductive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Since they've been editing for about three days, that seems reasonable, though I have to say someone who comes roaring into any situation and immediately starts telling everyone they come into contact with that they're doing it wrong...possibly this is not a simple inexperience issue. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the important thing to note is that the user has expressed *interest* in improving. This is definitely a case of "Good faith, bad approach." Catalyzzt (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This type of behavior, barging around arrogantly dictating to more experienced users,along with instantly becoming a wiki-cop even though they obviously don't know what they are doing needs to be nipped in the bud as quickly as possible. We've had cases in the past where people were lax with a new user behaving like this and they managed to become an incredible timesink for several years before finally being banned. That's not a good outcome for anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thedefender35 (talk · contribs) Would anyone watching the situation please let me know if there is another problem. I will indefinitely block the user if no one sanctions first. It's fine to mentor people and wait until they reach enlightenment, but time sinks are corrosive to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Will do; I'll be watching this user closely, and I have a feeling they've got the message. Catalyzzt (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thedefender35 hasn't edited since this discussion was open. Can we wait on any action until they've had a chance to engage here? Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Of course. No one is going to sanction the editor unless problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  What John said. I just wanted to be clear that they need to be willing and able to change that behavior upon their return, just saying they are willing to isn't enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr reported by HOA101

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• MfactDr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The dominant name in for this event is the "2016 Ethiopian protests," this novel name of 2016 Ethiopia’s nationwide Oromo protests User:MfactDr has concocted makes it seem like only Oromo people had a hand in the event. There was a a well documented sizable Amhara support for the protests as well, it also included support from other Ethiopians but namely Oromos and Amharas, do not erase documented Amhara opposition against the then government and support for the protests. Cease and desist this vandalism and historical revisionism of erasing Amhara and other Ethiopian contribution to ousting the Tigray People's Liberation Front from power specifically related to this event. User:MfactDr's novel title of 2016 Ethiopia’s nationwide Oromo protests was deliberately made to make the false argument that only Oromos were involved, which is incorrect, and I have also witnessed User:MfactDr's deletion of many sourced materials from the article specifically those that relate to Amhara contributions to the protests. HOA101 (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• You've posted basically this same message on their talk page, and at AIV, and at the article talk page. I would advise you to wait and see how they reply, and please don't keep spamming this same message all over. This looks like a fairly routine content dispute, there does not appear to be any need for administrative intervention in it at this time. If discussion doesn't bring the results you hoped for, you can pursue dispute resolution to resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, I think the user HOA101 not happy with sourced contents and accused me removed contents. I have replied him under Talk:2016 Ethiopian protests the same issue. there is no single concocted contents as he claimed, all my edit on 2016 Ethiopian protests was all sourced contents. I advise him not remove sourced contents as s/he did here I haven't removed any single sourced contents from Amhara part as s/he claimed! if s/he found any sourced contents is removed by me, I am more than happy to correct it. thanks MfactDr (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Geography86 mass-creating contentless geostubs, unresponsive to communication

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

---

This user has been creating a large number of geography stubs, consisting solely of e.g. "Mount Madi-ac is the highest peak in Aklan". No coordinates, no references, no categories, no second sentence. They've done about 32 in the last hour; I've attempted to communicate with them on their talk page, to no avail, and they continue to make more single-sentence articles. I'm not sure what to do with this: the articles are not vandalism, and they seem prima facie like they'd be capable of passing WP:NGEO if they had any references or content beyond a single sentence. The mass creation of dozens of unreferenced single-sentence stubs, however, seems disruptive to me. jp×g 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Blocked for 24h by User:Moneytrees, but I still think this warrants further attention. jp×g 02:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to note that Hughesdarren and Troutfarm27 have most of this user's articles tagged under G5, which may suggest that they are a sock of somebody else, but I am clearly not sure if they are belonging to somebody else. Because of this, I tagged the rest of their articles with G5 as well as their proper tags Nevermind, I realized that these were mistags (per this decline) and I am draftifying the rest of these articles instead. MarioJump83! 04:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't tag them for CSD because they didn't look like they met any of the criteria (except for a couple that had no content and were just the article title repeated in body text). They're not very good articles, but WP:GEONAME presumably applies. Anyway, it looks like all of the rest of them got draftified, which seems fine (and then in six months someone can clear them out if they haven't been updated). I would have done that myself, but I didn't think to... jp×g 06:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood, and that realization helped me to realize that these articles should have been draftified. Thank you! MarioJump83! 06:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I have requested the global lock and now they are globally locked. I don't think there is a thing to do now and should be closed. MarioJump83! 11:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 and disruptive redirect requests

• 2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP range, previously blocked for disruptive AfC review requests, is back at it again with similar requests, this time not just using the AfC draftspace process, but also repeatedly requesting redirects without sources at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Contribution history may also contain other disruption, however, individual IPs were previously blocked for evading an existing block at 70.114.31.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP that also caused similar disruption. Note I've also had one of the IPs in this range attack my Talk page and trigger the filter on my user page as well.

Courtesy ping Cyphoidbomb as previous blocking admin of this range and Yamla as blocking admin for the latter IP. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

IP is continuing the same disruptive requests after this report was made. Just another case of WP:IDHT. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive new user

User:KaimkhaniKamal has made extensive edits in the Kabaddi article space. Most of these are contentious, disruptive, POVPUSH edits. But more importantly even outright WP:HOAXes. There is no singular international kabaddi competition and a lot of kabaddi sports competitions are known as the "World Cup" (based on their playing style standard/circle) but the user has without discussion moved and edited all of them to remove the word "World" from them, in-line in keeping with his disruptive change of an article about the International Kabaddi Federation to the World Kabaddi Federation (WKF) which are completely different organizations. The intention here is to keep only WKF organized events as "the" kabaddi World Cup on Wikipedia which is clearly not the case.

He has also disruptively introduced the term "kabadder" (move/edited pages) to designate kabaddi players, this term is completely unknown in any English publication or otherwise and is an outright hoax. They are known as kabbadi players (as seen in long standing cats which he has also disruptively moved).

Similarly other disruptive edits include the removal of any mention of India from multiple articles: [73], [74], [75].

Clearly the user's intention is not to contribute in any meaningful way, having ignored warning, reverts (silently undoing them repeatedly without discussion) and outright hoaxes. A perma-ban is the need here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment). Until 3 March 2021, Kadaddi World Cup was a DAB page - link. Both the articles on that page now redirect to Kabaddi World Cup. In the process, Kabaddi World Cup (Standard style) was blanked by KaimkhaniKamal with the ES "This is an unofficial tournament as IKF is not the official governing body of Kabaddi, The official page of Kabaddi World Cup is organized by World Kabaddi Federation (WKF)." Before blanking, that article looked like this. I share Gotitbro's concerns. Narky Blert (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for disruption. Please clean up their "Kabaddi World Cup" and "Kabadder" edits as needed. Fences&Windows 12:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Golitbro and I have restored the three Kabaddi World Cup pages to the status quo ante, and I have posted accordingly on Golitbro's TP. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just an observation that more cleanup after this editor is still needed. I tried to track down two or three strings of related disruptive changes and burned out rather quickly. – Athaenara ✉ 08:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with GA & FLs

Dr Salvus has been persistently nominating articles for GA and FL that do not meet the criteria, as well as poor attempts to do a GA review, which has left some GA nominations stranded in limbo. It seems clear to me that they don't have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and that the user is possibly just interested in Wikipedia:Hat collecting (they have also had a rollback request denied). Problematic issues include:

1. Repeatedly re-nominating the same list for FL, and then withdrawing when they get feedabck: 1, 2, 3
2. Creating GA nominations for lists e.g. Talk:List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain/GA1 (and a few more which were reverted immediately). This is despite clear warnings on talkpage here, here, and here
3. Posting support for GA nominations, rather than doing full reviews: here
4. Creating the GA nomination page for their own nomination: here
5. Asking for article to become GA despite failing a review a few months ago: here

Their article space editing is generally acceptable, which is why I am not suggesting a WP:CIR indefinate block. Instead, I would like to propose the following topic ban for Dr Salvus:

1. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Good Article review, and from participating in Good Article nomination discussions
2. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Featured List review, and from participating in Featured List nomination discussions
3. Dr Savlus is topic banned from suggesting that other editors nominate articles for Good Article or Featured List

I hope we can get consensus for this, because it's a generally good faith editor, who is just causing quite a bit of disruption to the GA and FL processes. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I added one more thing. And I think some of the poor GA/FL noms may have been deleted, so if an admin could checked their deleted contribs, that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The CIR issues seem to extend beyond content review processes: adding gender to another editor’s userpage and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I won't repeat again. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without seeing a pattern of consistently poor editing (poor to the point of being disruptive, that is), I think I'll oppose topic bans and support the user joining the mentoring scheme. The FL/GA stuff is no doubt annoying, but doesn't seem to have caused mass disruption; indeed, from another perspective, it could indicate an eagerness to promote quality-an eagerness which may outstrip their current ability, but not something they should be punished for. At least, not yet.
  What I see here is an editor with potential (their stats are better than mine—no blocks and mostly article space edits. Disallowing them the opportunity to translate their article work into good or featured material is in neither their nor the project's favour (again: at the moment). It's true that their recent flurry (well, three) of adding gender to editors user cats was wrong: but again, good faith might persuade us to see it as misguided rather than malicious. (Indeed, so soon after International Women's Day, it may well have been well-intentioned.) They have not done it since: perhaps that shows another important quality—the ability to stop and learn. If they can be persuaded to do the same in other areas—a role a mentor would excel in, I think—then we have gained a productive editor rather than losing one.
  Ultimately, at this early stage, I think we'd be breaking a butterfly upon a wheel to sanction DrSalvus, although my comments should not be taken by him as a licence to continue as they are: quite the opposite. ——Serial 14:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Escalated warning (direct link) for various WP:CIR issues, several of a provocational nature. Therefore, I'm applying a straight-up WP:DE approach to this. El_C 14:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic bans at this time per the clear signals that the user is willing to take on feedback and try to learn from it, e.g. at User:Dr Salvus#Things not to do and Wikipedia:Help desk#WP:VAND and WP:DE (permalink). If the user couldn't be trusted to abide by their word then I would struggle to see how they could be a net positive in any area. So let's give Dr Salvus a chance to learn from their mistakes.
  I would definitely recommend to Dr Salvus: at this time it is not a good idea to be getting involved in GA and FL. Learn more about how to find, identify and reference good sources and how to write professional-quality prose. Put that into practice on articles you have worked on in the past, without nominating them for GA or FL. Making some mistakes is okay, but if you continue to make the same mistakes about GA/FL then you are putting at jeopardy your ability to edit here, which is a lose-lose because we value your football-related contributions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this editor has a poor understanding of Wikipedia types of content. I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Geometry_Dash_levels that he should probably take a break from lists entirely, but that warning has not been heeded. A related issue is basically User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Mike_Patton_quote_removal_edit I'm going to make mistakes, deal with it which is perhaps not the ideal response. Suggest a pause and perhaps a mentor who can walk this editor through Wikipedia, and not hat collecting which all of this reads as. StarM 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• As with all (alleged) potential CIR issues, it would likely be a reassurance to hear the editor say in their own words what they understand the community concerns about their editing to be, and how they plan to address these concerns. Any half-decent answers to these two questions would suggest that sanctions are not needed. Also: Somewhat question the value of mentoring, but I suppose with a good mentor one likes/trusts it can work well, as a purely voluntary arrangement though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • True, but given the user ongoing behavior while this thread is open (see User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures and courtesy @JohnFromPinckney:) doesn't give me faith he understands where he's lacking in understanding of these processes. StarM 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content at Mr. Big (American band)

• Jupiter 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly editing the Mr. Big article without providing a WP:RS. He/she repeatedly adds their original drummer (who is deceased) to the current members section and claims the band hasn't broken up yet, but continues to not provide a reliable source, or proof/evidence, supporting this fact. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.by El_C --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) per usual... Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jupiter 1999 reported by User:MetalDiablo666

Jupiter 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unsourced information over at Mr. Big-related articles, including Pat Torpey, as well as adding members in the incorrect order. I've repeatedly asked the user to provide a source for his/her changes, but has refused to do so. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• El C blocked him from editing one article for a week a day ago, so I'm pinging him since he is already familiar with the case. I wouldn't seem that the limited block did the trick, but I will leave that in his capable hands. Often times, MetalDiablo666, when an admin has recently sanctioned an editor and they need another look, it's faster just to go to the admin's page, or ping the admin in the report. You aren't required to, it's just usually faster since that admin knows the backstory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, but in hindsight, this block may have been too narrow. But, also, maybe not...? MetalDiablo666, they did end up providing a source in the end (diff), so are we not good now? El_C 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well then, based on what Dennis Brown and El_C just said, I guess the case is closed. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I take it you're happy with the source and all is otherwise well now, then? El_C 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lets play 2bwu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly Jupiter 1999, editing the same way as that user, and obviously creating multiple accounts as an excuse to evade a block after El_C prevented him/her from editing the Mr. Big article. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Still no answer to my question about their source, though, MetalDiablo666 — why is that? I need you to answer that directly, or I'm just gonna default to lifting both the protection and block. El_C 15:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: The reasons Jupiter 1999/Lets play 2bwu has refused to cite a source are he/she keeps adding Pat Torpey, who is deceased and technically a former member, and he/she said the break up was unsourced, when it actually is. The user obviously isn't coming to his/her senses. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• MetalDiablo666, ah, gotcha. Now I understand and am up to speed. Thanks. El_C 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nakita Kelley reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Expletive-laden personal attack on User talk:Alex 21. [76] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Alex 21 could be less bitey in this edit summary. Please use please when directing other users. It goes a log way to not generate frustrated outbursts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, because I said "don't revert again", that gives them reason to call me an "asshole" and a "son of a bitch"? Is that really what you're saying? "If Alex was this instead of this" is textbook victim-blaming. Shame. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's right when everybody's wrong. @Nakita Kelley:. Please do not call other users foul names. Lot's of room for improvement. Two, no four magic words: "please", "thank you", & "I'm sorry". I see Nakita never responded here --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO a fair answer FWIW. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And here is Nakita apologizing. Before Alex responded here? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It should never have happened; Nakita Kelley apologized after the report, only because they were so prompted to. In your first response, you never said "please" to me, does that give me the right to egregious insults, and then if I apologize, we can act as if nothing happened? Cool. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously Nakita Kelley acted inappropriately here, and certainly no one has the "right" to make egregious insults as long as they apologize later. However, in this case, because they are a relatively new editor, have been warned for their misconduct, and have since apologized, and because blocking is preventative, not punitive, no block appears to be necessary at this time. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Next sure, I'll be sure to say "please don't use fan art". -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BlueGhast

Once again, user BlueGhast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resumed to his/her reiterated disruptive editing and unjustified removal of content on the article Theistic Satanism (Diff 1, Diff 2) after being warned multiple times for similar disruptive behavior a few months ago on the same article. BlueGhast removed −2,831 of text from sourced content because, according to his/her own explanation in the edit summary, he/she personally deemed it a "Reference with irrelevant information" (Diff 1). Since the last discussion about this user, in which I was involved, I assumed good faith (as other editors suggested) about his/her behavior, I explained in the edit summary why his/her latest edit qualifies as disruptive, reverted it, and warned him/her on his/her Talk page (Diff 3). He/She ignored the warning, deleted it and reverted both my edits (Diff 2, Diff 4), then I proceeded to report him/her to the WP:AIV, and finally to the WP:ANI as the admin Spencer suggested.

BlueGhast's goal on Wikipedia seems entirely devoted to write about Joy of Satan Ministries on every article that pertains to Satanism (mainly, Theistic Satanism) in the most positive/grandiose way, disregarding other editors' contributions; more precisely, my contributions, since I had to notice him/her twice that copying within Wikipedia requires attribution to other editors' contributions on his/her Talk page; as always, he/she disregarded my messages and deleted them (Diff 5, Diff 6). Honestly, I think that BlueGhast doesn't really care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, since he/she doesn't seem interested in getting familiar with them, nor with collaborating with other users (despite all the warnings and suggestions to do otherwise, which he/she just ignored and deleted). Instead, he/she continues with his/her erratic, careless behavior, ignoring other editors' messages and warnings about it, unresponsive to communications.

In my opinion, BlueGhast's disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, careless behavior towards other editors, narrow self-interest and promotion of Joy of Satan Ministries, along with his/her latest edits, qualify as WP:Disruptive editing, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and possibly WP:NOTHERE.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I made the removal as I felt the editors reference format wasn't suitable and out of place, so I simply changed it into source link for the article. The editor could've simply added the contents to the section, even though I'm uncertain if the material is even relevant to the article subject, otherwise editor is writing more than what is necessary for something that seams unrelated. Content should be elsewhere in my opinion, such as in the NSM article.

User was warned of AGF violation for false accusations, and evidently seams to continue doing so. I'm open minded to whatever information but the editor here seams to have different intentions. I was going to bring our issue for debate on the talk page, but I figured it would've ended up being escalated to Admin notice anyway. I also provided reasons for the changes.

The "spiritual Satanist" topic is currently one of my main projects, but not the only one. BlueGhast (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC) BlueGhast

This is a content dispute and not vandalism, GenoV84. Users are allowed to remove notices on their own talk page, as you were informed last time you posted here about them (it's not a good look to repeat the complaint, see WP:IDHT). For allegations of COPYVIO and POV pushing, please provide diffs. Please follow dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 02:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Windsor Lines

I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk · contribs) repeatedly creates the article Windsor Lines (Waterloo to Reading, Windsor and Hounslow loop) [77] which effectively is an incoherent copy of three existing articles (Waterloo–Reading line, Hounslow Loop Line and Staines–Windsor line). This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Windsor Lines and there is no consensus for combining these articles into one. --PhiH (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

PhiH (talk · contribs)I did because in the rail industry they are treated as a combined network.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the article which can be argued out at the existing project talk page, I have blocked the user for one week from article space for repeated unattributed copying and pasting from other articles to create the one under discussion. They have had more than one warning, including one from me earlier today yet they have insisted on repeating the copy in twice since then. Nthep (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Metehan Uygur7

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

---

Metehan Uygur7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS:

What is the reason for the prejudice against turks. why don't you accept that the state or dynasty is of Turkic origin

Please stop being Iranian nationalism and look at some thoughts objectively, of not distorting history by nationalizing any Turkic dynasty.

What you're doing is just distorting history, remember that this is a page that's objective, and concepts like nationalism don't apply here.

You're just twisting history. You just have to be objective.

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:JDLI:

Why pan-Iranianists are trying to portray any Turki dynasty as a Persian dynasty(Seljuk,kharezm,Afshar, Qajar,ghaznavid,) and others

On this page, I propose that pan-Iranianists be portrayed as a dynasty of Persian origin in a dynasty of Turkic origin and protected so that readers do not receive false information.

Removed −1,488 of text, because he personally deemed it "unreliable" [78]

I propose that this discussion page be removed because it distorts history by rejecting a document registered with a nationalist attitude.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Bad move by JsfasdF252

JsfasdF252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, please undo this move: [79]. So that the infobox is in Template space, named Template:Infobox actinium isotopes has the content. I.e., move [back] over Redirect.

The edit breaks stable infobox setup (as used in 100+ similar templates Category:Infobox element isotopes templates). Once mainspace articles are unbroken, we can fix minor edits & collateral. Maybe consider restrictions on the editor, to prevent more such edits. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

DePiep, moves reverted. Home Lander (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Home Lander. Consider solved. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Arty Zifferelli reported by User:BarrelProof

Arty Zifferelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account created 9 days ago that has 14 edits. The majority of these edits have had problems and have been reverted. One fundamental issue is that the user keeps saying "Fixed typo" for the edit summary, when the edits are clearly not the correction of typos. In one other case "Fixed grammar" was also used in a similarly misleading way. Ten of the 14 edits have been these "Fixed typo" and "Fixed grammar" edits. Another strong pattern is that three of the edits ([80], [81], [82]) have been to change section headings to "Trivia", which seems somewhat WP:POINTy. Their user talk page has been accumulating warnings, but the editor does not respond to the warnings and does not alter the behavior. A temporary block might get their attention. Some of the edits are constructive. Some of them show familiarity with concepts such as templates and reliable sources and Talk page discussions (including signing comments), so the user seems somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. This may be one of those situations where they are not seeing talk page notices, in which case only a block will stop them. If it continues, they can be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The elements of this have all been discussed pretty extensively. Those are default edit summaries provided by the app. They aren't communicating with you because...the app doesn't tell them you're trying to communicate. They won't get a block notification, either, so their first indication will be 'you have been blocked from editing' when they actually do, for reasons that will make absolutely no sense to them -- and indeed should make no sense to any reasonable editor who knows about the utter disaster that is the mobile app. (Imagine how someone would feel to be blocked after, as far as they know, doing everything right and acting exactly how they've been told to.) A block is much less likely to "get their attention" than it is to drive them away in confusion and anger, and hold a grudge against Wikipedia for blocking them for no apparent reason. So far as anyone can tell, the only way to communicate with app users is via personalized edit filters. Pinging @Suffusion of Yellow, who I worry is sick of this topic, but can rant on it with the best of them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mobile app users don't get notified of comments on their user talk pages? Really? The need to be able to communicate with users seems like a pretty fundamental requirement to me. It might be better not to have a mobile app than to have one that is missing that capability. (After all, people could use a browser instead. Do mobile web edits behave the same way? I've previously noticed trouble getting to talk pages from mobile web editing, but does that also affect user talk pages?) — BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The need to be able to communicate with users seems like a pretty fundamental requirement to me -- it does, doesn't it? The last ANI thread on the disaster that is the app is here, if you want some further reading. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

After I submitted this report, the user has made three more edits. All of them use "Fixed typo" as their edit summary. None of them are typo fixes. All of them change section headings to "Trivia". I personally believe we cannot just let this kind of behaviour continue, even if our ability to discourage it is hindered by a bad app. Users who continue to perform unhelpful editing and don't respond to warnings should be blocked. The app may provide a convenient UI for when an editor is temporarily not using a laptop, and may be somewhat OK for editors who make clearly helpful contributions, but if a majority of an editor's contributions are being reverted, they should not be allowed to just continue doing that indefinitely. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: If they are blocked, they won't get a custom block message either, at least until they switch to the mobile browser. But how will they know to do that? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the predictability of their edits, could one of the edit filter wizards set up something temporarily to get their attention? I know SoY has already been pinged. The alternative is going to be a block and any chance of retaining the editor. Slywriter (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I'm willing to try, but see User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs. The IOS app will just display the title of the edit filter message, but not the message. So there's no way to make clickable links. Someone who uses the iOS app will need to create a message like "click on this menu, blah blah blah, then click on 'talk' and blah blah blah." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I also note a further annoyance: all of the user's article-space edits are being marked as minor. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about that. Can an iOS user please check how the app handles minor edits? How is the option presented to the user? I have a sneaking suspicion that the app "helpfully" remembers your selection from the last edit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I do 99% of my editing on Android smartphones, using the desktop site, which is 100% fully functional on modern mobile devices. The only time I sit down at a desktop computer is to work on large image files. We would all be better off if the WMF shut down all these poor quality smartphone/mobile apps, which are an impediment to collaborative editing. I cannot imagine the amount of money that has been wasted on these crappy apps over the years, but "small fortune" comes to mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace

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

---

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

I intervened in a BLP dispute[83] at Nightingale College by twice removing disputed material about its CEO and giving BLP warnings.[84][85] Infinitepeace leaves a series of erratic warnings that reachesWP:HOUNDING in terms of whatever point they're trying to make.[86][87] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Further disruption of the talk page[88] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is beyond ridiculous. Infinitepeace is bludgeoning Talk:Nightingale College, including copying comments from one page to another, and is now forum-shopping this issue to WT:OR, Teahouse Talk, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:GoingBatty, User talk:MB, WikiProject Utah, and WikiProject Higher education. I've explained why their edits are considered synthesis at WT:OR but they're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I suggest a WP:CIR block. Woodroar (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite being specifically asked to not post to my Talk page, Infinitepeace continues to post to my Talk page. Confusingly, he or she explicitly acknowledged that I had made that request ("You then requested I no longer post on your talk page.").

I asked him or her to not post to my Talk page because he or she was unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory in our interactions. I ceased all contact and unwatched the article that he or she edits most. At this point this is harassment and I'd like it to stop. Can someone please have a word with him or her and convince him or her that this is unacceptable? ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Nightingale College.

WP:Hounding? Please. How about all of the dubious edits by you 3? The edit history is clear. Morbidthoughts leaves multiple messages on my talk page. WP:HOUNDING that is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I return the favor in kind.

ElKevbo has a history of deleting messages on his talk page which are critical of him. I noticed that he forum shopped on the Wikipedia education page. And so I brought it up to him on his talk page. He deleted the message again. I also noticed he edits A LOT of colleges. There is a history of paid editors editing the talk page.

I am adding all the comments of all of you people, in one place, so that neutral observers, who are not paid, can observe the various arguments and make their own decisions.

I wanted to file a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents against ElKevbo yesterday, but I could not find this location.

You 3 know the policy much better than I. With all of your combined histories, You most definitely have admins who are favorable to your WP:POV. You are hoping to silence me, then have the section that you are claiming does not meet WP:BLP noticeboard deleted. The editors on this page, are not taking the most simplest effort to confirm that what is added it true. Woodroar would not even do a simple google check that the man is president of Nightingale College

'I have avoided this forum like the plagued, because I see the way that well intentioned newbies and other editors are bullied and silenced. The people on this forum support deletion. Posting this also serves as an advertisement to have even more experienced editors slice up the article, criticize me, and comb through me edits.

I wish I would have found this page yesterday.

All the various edits by these 3 editors are on Talk:Nightingale College in one place. I am trying to establish that this information is valid, and I ask ElKevbo Morbidthoughts and Woodroar to start adding material instead of criticizing it. A simply google Woodroar. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: Google does not establish notability or verifiability. This policy is: Wikipedia:Search engine test. Specifically, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit-count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability". Just that Google says someone is CEO does not mean they are. Zaereth and Woodroar point out nearly all of the problems with your edits. You respond to them telling them to read policy on WP:BITE and condescendingly asking them to edit the page themselves and come up with citations for it themselves ("I got a great idea guys, why not use Archive.org and help me edit the page, or Google Mikhail Shneyder Nightingale college.") You accuse other editors or bullying without any real evidence, then bringing up past warnings of users, without genuinely addressing what they did wrong. You then asked Morbidthoughts how they found this page, then accusing them of WP:COI paid editing with no evidence ("Explain how you found out about this article, as their is a history of paid editors who have editing this page."). WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (merged)

See Talk:Nightingale College where all of the various arguments are in one place.

Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Today I started to be WP:hounded by the bizarre accusations of Mordbidthoughts. WP:KETTLE He was templating me to death. I returned the favor in kind. I also posted these flawed arguments on Talk:Nightingale College so that they would be all in one place where a neutral observer would see these edits. User:Morbidthoughts clearly knows Wikipedia policy better then me, and he is using this policy as a weapon to silence me. I am trying to add verifiable information to Nightingale College, and I continue to be WP:Hounded.

Morbidthoughts clearly knows how to delete peoples information. Going straight to WP:BLP Noticeboard , which tends to be is very very negative towards editors contributions. He then inevitable filed a WP:ANI (I think that is the acronym, which serves 2 purposes:

1. It will give more like mind editors a chance to weight in on the WP:BLP Noticeboard.
2. It will allow like minded editors to silence me.

I am concerned how the editor proudly proclaims on his talk page that he has been "vandalized 22 times" this shows a personality that does not get along with others. I have expressed these concerns to him.

i am attempting to keep all of the various and deeply flawed arguments of these editors in one place on Talk:Nightingale College. But that is not how Wikipedia works, and so Morbidthoughts is being blindsided by my edits, and so he he came here to rally the troops. I have nothing but contempt for this forum, and I avoid it like the plague because I see from afar how editors are Bullied

I want to remind Morbidthoughts that he is @ 2 reverts, and WP:3RR rule.

Seasoned editors will email their collogues. Saying this doesn't happen is denying reality. I have seen accusation of this here before too. And in those other boards which I don't remember the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitepeace (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace (talk)

Infinitepeace, you are editing disruptively. Please stop attacking Morbidthoughts with retaliatory warning templates. BTW, my talk page has been vandalized hundreds of times. El_C 05:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Kashmiris disruption

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

---

Fowler&fowler has cut over 50,000 bytes of text from the Kashmiris article three times in the last few days. The user insists it is a POVFORK, but why is it acceptable to cut nearly the entire article without a dedicated plan for rewriting, or at least getting consensus on the talk page? For “an experienced editor” as they write on my talk page, this seems like vandalism.[89]—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with F&F in some of their edits. Their edit summaries explain mostly why they removed it, and I agree with those about NPOV. As for WP:OR, I'm stumped with a lot of it. For example, they say one of the links they removed is a tourism site, but I only see book citations and a UN report (see this edit). WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the posts here. I am about to go to bed, so I'll reply to the allegations tomorrow. But let me state the previous consensus in Kashmir-related pages:

Kashmir, the northern-most region of South Asia, is a major area of dispute and controversy; it is the oldest dispute before the UN. There are discretionary sanctions imposed by ARBCOM on Kashmir-related pages. ( I am the main author of Kashmir, the FA India, Partition of India, History of Pakistan, British Raj, Company rule in India, in other words all the historical pages related to Kashmir. I am the person responsible for the consensus among WP editors from India and Pakistan on a common introductory NPOV language in all the pages on the major subregions of Kashmir.)

Kashmiris, however, is a POV-fork, mostly written by a banned user, and expanded by editors who are attempting to sneak in the Indian Hindu nationalist POV. By earlier consensus, tourism, geography, biodiversity, and the pre-1947 history is restricted to the Kashmir page, the history of the period 1947 to 2019 to the Jammu and Kashmir (state) page and the history thereafter to the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) page. There is nothing in the Kashmiris page except Kashmiri language that is NPOV. The dedicated plan is to redirect it to Kashmiri language. More tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Molandfreak, maybe engage the March 11 discussion at Talk:Kashmiris#POV_fork, first? I'd also point out that reverting with the edit summary "WTF?" (diff) isn't the best look. Nor is intimating "vandalism" on the part of an editor who arguably has contributed more content (of especially high-quality, I would add) to Indian-related topics than anyone else on the project. In any case, please review what vandalism is not, because that is, in fact, a personal attack. El_C 04:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: So I'm entirely the bad guy for pointing out a fifty thousand byte removal of material without pointing to the brief talk page discussion in the edit summaries? Sorry for not knowing the entire history of Fowler&fowler's editing and I'm sure it's good, but it really appears one-sided from that perspective. The revisions have effectively reduced the article to the point where about half of it is just external links, which isn't really their fault, but a "rewrite in progress" or something else to note would have been nice to see in the midst of a deletion that massive.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Withdrawn. This was a mistake in the first place just assuming there would be a larger discussion on the talk page with consensus on the deletion of that much material. Sorry for WP:POINTing this. @Fowler&fowler: I'm terribly sorry about dragging you into this ordeal and honestly meant no harm.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Molandfreak maybe glance at the user page (User:Fowler&fowler) of the editor of whom you accuse of vandalism...? It only takes a minute. El_C 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/74.51.144.75 and WP:VERIFY

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

---

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

Persistent addition of unsourced material throughout February despite multiple warnings being issued. Behaviour has continued into March. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Report of User:Tayi Arajakate

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

---

User:Tayi Arajakate is abruptly reverting my edits simply because it doesn't suits its interest. I have added templates which are related to the respective article. And he is just removing without giving proper explanation. Check [90] [91] [92]. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56, you're facing imminent WP:ARBIPA sanctions. You need to slow down. Stop edit warring in multiple related pages. Respect and observe WP:ONUS, please. El_C 04:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is he not even willing to listen on this issue. Rather gave me veil threat of disruptive editing at my talk page. A person who doesn't have the courage to discuss this issue and reverting my edits randomly is unacceptable. We can discuss this out and then reach consensus, but he just reverting simply because it doesn't suit his interest. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are adding disputed content to multiple pages and edit warring over their reinsertion. I find that linking to WP:ONUS often doesn't help, because users engaging in disruptive editing, like yourself, simply do not bother clicking on the link. So, then, I'm forced to quote, which I really shouldn't have to. Well, should, shouldn't, here it is: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 05:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this to ANI yet but since you did anyways, I should probably elaborate a bit more. I haven't checked most of the edits as of now but from what I can see there are a lot of serious issues with your editing. See the following for example.

• Special:Diff/1010576243 - Here you removed "citation needed" tags, with the edit summary "as per source sentence corrected". The citations provided for the part afterwards do not verify the line.
• Special:Diff/1011991286 - This page move along with the explanation in Special:Diff/1012021992 is an example of original research.
• Special:Diff/1010374811 - Adds a term in the template and then spams it across a number of articles.
• Special:Diff/1011042324 - Another instance of the above.
• Special:Diff/1010942508 - Another example of OR driven reasoning.

The template and category spam in particular is extremely disruptive and somewhat difficult to spot as they appear as relatively small edits and don't concern the mainspace. Some of them may be included while others certainly not. For instance the addition of "Category:Totalitarianism" in The Emergency (Special:Diff/1011666926). Many of the articles are also very contentious and the inclusion or not would need to be discussed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Look the main point is these are not disruptive editing first of all. Secondly why didn't you discuss these matters first rather reverting my edits randomly. First you discuss point by point article by article then after consensus then we can see what should be included or not. If you have any issue with the template and category then discuss each template and category one by one what should be included or not. Something does not suits your interest doesn't mean you revert. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56, what part of the onus is on you do you not understand? El_C 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have understood clearly. My main point is if you have any issue with me first discuss with me article by article. And then we'll see what should be included or not. Simple. I can't fathom why you guys are making things so complicated. Through discussion any issue can be resolved no matter how much time it takes. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you obviously don't understand. The onus is on you to discuss once your edits are contested. Making such contested edits in multiple pages is disruptive and is a cause for sanctions. Which, unfortunately, seem more and more likely to be needed here. El_C 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Adinew56, on looking through the above and your editing behavior it is clear that you don't understand how this encyclopaedia works and/or don't want to follow the processes but just have your way. You need to correct this behavior or you will be the one being sanctioned. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Look something doesn't suits you. You threaten people to block them. What is stopping you to discuss if you have any problem with my editing. I'll discuss each article at their respect talk page. I don't want to lengthen this discussion. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56 First of all don't refer to editors as "it" and I appreciate that may have been a mistake. Second take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, you got reverted and now you go to the talk page and discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Using "he" is also inappropriate, as Tayi Arajakate lists their preference as "they", per {{gender|Tayi Arajakate}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Please note that I've topic banned Adinew56 from the WP:ARBIPA topic area for 3 months as a logged AE action. El_C 06:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Please revert your action regarding WP:ARBIPA topic area. I apologize for my mistake and willing to cooperate with you. Please don't do topic banned. I apologize. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Adinew56, but it's best that you get the hang of things outside of this fraught topic area, because there are too many problems, including likely questionable edits to living persons. El_C 06:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: For god's sake don't do this to me. Please forgive me. I made a mistake and willing to cooperate with you guys. I apologize. Please please revert topic banned from the WP:ARBIPA topic area. Forgive me. From next time if you find any mistake then put sanctions against me. Forgive me. I apologize for my mistake. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

UPE at Devadas Krishnadas

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

---

• Devadas Krishnadas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lingyin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gouriepandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachelpang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting very likely UPE. (I apologise if this isn't the right forum. I tried at WP:COIN but wasn't able to get a response.) These accounts are single-purpose accounts which have edited almost exclusively on this article. These usernames match the names of people who were employees at the subject's company at the time of their edits, as an internet search shows. (I'm happy to send screenshots of their profiles or links to an admin on email.) They have not edited in a while, but I think some action is warranted as a deterrence to future employees from doing the same. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: these accounts have not edited Devadas Krishnadas in almost five years. If you think there is a problem with the page, simply edit it. I don't think ANI is the solution. --- Possibly (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Ahmad Zahir

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

---

Ahmad Zahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor Tajik.Arya has continually made edits to the Ahmad Zahir page, replacing neutral terms and cultural references with ones that seem to accord with the user's preference, though no explanation or citation has ever been provided. The editor has received several warnings on their talk page, but they have paid them no heed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing

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

---

• SBS3800P

This user has a history of persistent and blatant disruptive editing. They fulfil WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by failing to cite sources (point 2), and ignoring community input (point 5).

Their most recent unsourced edits, all from 2021, are: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. (Those that have citations behind them were added by other users and do not support the content that SBS3800P added.) There are innumerable more. A quick look through their contribution history will also show that nearly every edit comes without an edit summary.

Attempts by members of the community to engage with or warn them number have been ignored. There are at least 13 examples of these on their talk page dating back to 2018. (These are all prominent on SBS3800P's talk page.)

Members of the community have reported this user at ANI three times (incident in May 2019, incident in May 2020 and incident in November 2020), but for one reason or another, they were not able to achieve a resolution.

This is disruptive editing of the most flagrant kind and needs to be resolved as soon as possible, ideally with finality. It is likely wilfully incompetent editing, destructive to the encyclopedia and leaving a mess for other editors to clean up. I'm hoping an admin can help with this. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

IP editor persistently adding "Decisive" to battle infoboxes

The use of "Decisive" to describes the result of a battle is deprecated per the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict. Despite being informed of this, 65.255.138.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persists in adding it, and is pretty much all they have ever done since their first edit in 2019, except for a few minor improvements. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Clearly a static IP, and no communication at all despite warnings; maybe this will finally have the desired effect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not very... decisive. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Odd... even today's featured article used that term, 'decisive'. enjoyer|talk 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a very well-followed guideline. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Prolific IP vandal at CSD

Resolved

Please have a look at my recent deletion logs Special:Log/Maile66. We have an IP rapid fire creation of nonsense pages. So far, I've deleted about 30 as IPs, and a talk page (possibly same vandal) who created only a talk page that is an obscenity repeated over and over. Can this be halted? — Maile (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

At the moment, there seems to be a pause in the activity, but I'm leaving this open in case the vandal gets a second wind. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops ... they have returned. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: Could you be a bit more specific with example IPs? I looked through some of your deletion log, but they were all old pages, being nominated by the one (established) user. It looks like someone is having a clear-out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Ah ... I see ... it's more one nominator. My error. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued spamming, lack of communication and general NOTHERE behaviour from User:Ahmaddler

Despite a plethora of warnings from a large number of editors and a number of speedy deletions, User:Ahmaddler has persisted with creating the same article Halkawt zaher again and again and again. Each incarnation is exactly the same and the issues of promotion and notability are not addressed. There is likely some significant WP:COI/WP:UPE but they have made no declaration at all of that anywhere. They have already been blocked from editing Halkawt zaher but, annoyingly, this doesn't stop them from creating the article. Since they have recreated the spam article a further three times since the initial admin sanction and they have still not made any constructive edits since joining, I believe that a tougher sanction is needed. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Agree with Spiderone, also possible SPI case here (to be raised in a few minutes at SPI) with a newly created account adding to Draft:Halkawt zaher to get around partial block it looks like to me. JW 1961 Talk 20:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that definitely needs investigating. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Those with evidence to present may wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmaddler where two of us spotted different potential candidates in (currently) separate reports Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to what the SPI outputs, their edit filter log is concerning. IMO they are WP:NOTHERE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has continued again today, see Halkawt Zaher and Draft:Halkawt Zaher. Still no declaration of paid editing nor attempt to communicate. I agree with Victor that the user is WP:NOTHERE, especially because of their use of socks as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have spent a deal of time today chasing down more (many more) putative members of the sock drawer. 100% are NOTHERE

Paradoxically, HZ might even be notable, but I am not minded to create an attics eon him since I suspect paid editing. I've also tracked down a full set of uploads on Commons, and flagged them all for deletion. or a similar process Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Range of Greek IPs: false music certifications

• 2A02:587:7176:8000:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using Greek IPs has been changing music articles to have inflated sales figures and certifications. They do things such as change 183,000 to 200,000,[100] and change 1× Platinum to 3× Platinum.[101] None of these edits are supported by sources.

I linked to a /40 range above, but the range might be narrowed by someone searching the contributions of this person. Many of the contributions are single edits from one IP, for instance the one from Special:Contributions/2A02:587:7109:FE00:6D19:BADC:C1C7:EC82 in August 2020. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Range issues with IPv6 editor on ViacomCBS-related articles

• 2603:9008:1C80:BA76:E8F0:7C4C:DEFD:6802/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karrotfan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last several months, the above Spectrum IPv6 range has been propagating unsourced and overall incorrect information across a wide range of articles dealing with the topics of ViacomCBS, which has been a longtime sore spot here on the 'pedia thanks to the existence of Nickelodeon and Viacom's other cable networks and their programming lists and the vandalism which comes with them. Their vandalism even dates back to articles such as Warner-Amex Satellite Entertainment (which was never touched by VCBS or the first merged Viacom/CBS company), which has been in a revert/restore war for months as this range asserts WP:OWN behavior with its topics. I only became aware of it through the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon Networks, which the named account asserts is a real division, but is actually a creation out of whole cloth using a number of sources (and I suspect may be a sock of the Spectrum range; they've been crufting ViacomCBS infoboxes and templates themselves). @IceWelder: was the one to bring this issue to me since they deal with this type of vandalism more than I do, but didn't have time to build a case about it. I'm asking for someone to look this over; IW suspects that the damage to these articles may be so great, that a WP:TNT approach to before November 2020 for reversion may need to be taken. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(Also @Trivialist:, who looking at contribs has been dealing with them also.) Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

New user misusing user pages

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

---

• Wikiworld738163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User in question has been ClueBot-related things to their user page, clearly misusing their pages (see here and here). User has also created User:Wikiworld738163/edit rate and User:Wikiworld738163/tasks and is now changing things to their own liking on User:ClueBot Commons/Awards. Seems to me like we have a possible case of WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever used "not here to build an encyclopedia" as a block reason before, but thsi seems like a pretty clear case. Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Reverting Trina Saha everytime by User:DasSoumik

Please help to stop DasSoumik from reverting contents of Trina Saha to back redirect. I have expanded to a full article from a redirect that was created in 2018 and reviewed by Onel5969. I declare that I have no conflict of interest and not paid to create the article. She is a well established actress from India and satisfies WP:ENT and passes WP:GNG. Also, no WP:PROMOTIONAL content is added. I have discussed with the user but he does not seems to listen and starts reverting. I have also requested for move protection at WP:RFPP as per [102]. Please help. Thank you 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. (Have you considered registering an account?) This isn't quite appropriate for this board -- you should go to WP:DRN instead, which is where we handle content disputes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: For some reasons I have decided not to create an account now as I am not a regular contributor. DasSoumik is not listening and he/she thinks anonymous editors means WP:COI or WP:UPE which is incorrect. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

DasSoumik has started to WP:VANDAL page Trina Saha and moving to draftspace etc. Please see the page log here. Already final warned and reported at WP:AIV. Please help to stop vandalism by DasSoumik. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help Vaticidalprophet WhoAteMyButter or any admin. The user is keep reverting every time 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So, DasSoumik isn't vandalizing Wikipedia under Wikipedia's definition of the term ("vandalism" on Wikipedia requires intent to disrupt). However, it does seem to me that DasSoumik should stop reverting/moving to draftspace and instead start a deletion discussion if they believe that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It's pretty late in the night for me right now, so I'm a little too tired to untangle the page histories, but it looks like there is also a cut-and-paste move that needs to be fixed between Draft:Trina Saha and Trina Saha. For now, I've gone ahead an left a message on DasSoumik's talk page asking them to stop reverting. Mz7 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Can you apply move protection to avoid further disruption. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. Currently, there already exists a page at Draft:Trina Saha, so even if the user wanted to move the article, they would not have the technical ability to overwrite the existing page history there. I've also left them a message on their user talk page asking them to stop, so I suspect they will simply stop after reading that message. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Also what is the rationale of saying This is article is promoting by an unregistered person, and this is clear that the parson os doing promotional work. So I am reverting back per [103]. It looks the editor is lacking WP:CIR. The user-page also says the editor is in class 12 and can be below of 18 years of age. So, WP:MINORS can apply. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here and wait for DasSoumik to respond to discussion. This is not an urgent issue by any means. They're also a relatively new editor, so I think we should cut them some slack. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, especially when they're new (on the other hand, you seem like you know a lot about Wikipedia's rules... out of curiosity, have you ever had an account in the past?). As far as the user page goes, there are no rules against minors editing Wikipedia (the essay you cited refers to articles about minors, not editors who are minors), so I don't think any direct action is needed as a result of that. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WhoAteMyButter Thanks for the help. Mz7 thank you for resolving the issue with the author. I think this has resolved and this thread can closed. 2402:3A80:113B:6861:8851:BDC1:F0D2:56CC (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Something very odd is going on here, because all of the article's history prior to today appears to have been removed. Could someone who understands these things investigate and restore? RolandR (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have merged the history of Draft:Trina Saha into Trina Saha and deleted the draft which is now not performing any useful purpose. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Defamatory content at Darren Moulding

Requesting rev/deletion. And a user block, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Same vandalism at least as far back as December 2019. History of WP:BLP violations that may merit rev/deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Out of interest, I looked to see if that stuff was flagged by a filter. It was (log-only). The same filter (189 (hist · log)) catches edits like special:Diff/1012172971, special:Diff/1012167292 and special:Diff/1012200340, and particularly stuff like special:Contributions/2600:1010:B110:980D:F101:2F52:FAC2:88D9 (amongst lots of others). Probably need to do a better job at denying/deleting BLP vandalism/libel, somehow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

REVDELs done and blp has been semi protected. Email me any diffs that still need attention/REVDEL and I'll take a look. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There may be a little residue from earlier that December 7, but it looks like you got almost all of it, EvergreenFir. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-stop sock farming, meatpuppetry and long-term abuse by User:Karakeçi24

Please take a look at this SPI and its archive:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24

There are also similar SPI cases and users which are WP:MEATPUPPET of Karakeçi24 in my opinion:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 (strong similarity)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26 (targets similar topics (see my report) plus the other articles; e.g. take a look at revision history of Subutai)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapazaTaklaAttıranİmam
• Blocked accounts like HistoryOfTurkic, WikiTyrcaen, HistoriaTurce, Metehan_Uygur7, and some others

In my opinion, this a non-stop organized nationalistic quest. It seems these users work together via social media, internet forums, and chat rooms. Is there any solution to stop them? Is IP range block effective against them? Can we prevent them from sock farming and creating dozens of new accounts? Seriously their activity has become frustrating. e.g. see the revision history of Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681). They target and attack other editors. They post personal attacks and forum-like stuff on talk pages. How we should deal with them? Wario-Man ^talk 06:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be easier to prevent new users editing the relevant articles, although I realise that may also be trying to hit a moving target. Deb (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 spams Talk pages with diatribes about a WWI general

Possible range block needed. 2003:CF:BF2E:CB93:C57A:B1D9:F615:FA24‎ (talk · contribs) appears to be someone with a monomania about Romanian WWI general Aristide Razu, and spams unrelated talk pages with diatribes about Romania, Communism, and especially Aristide Razu, and signs as "AristideRazu" or similar. He first popped up on my watchlist with this edit at Talk:French Army, and has 13 other TP edits of identical size to other unrelated Talk pages today, which I've reverted. Yesterday he had this edit at Talk:Italy and this at Talk:Romania under a different IPv6. From December 10-12, he had a run of several dozen of these, under ‎2003:cf:bf12:d8d5:4dc4:16ff:818f:8d36 (talk · contribs) and 2003:cf:bf12:d849:9bb:e9c8:eb1f:948c (talk · contribs) and 2003:cf:bf12:d89d:6564:8747:4710:8449 (talk · contribs). I've followed him back to mid-September, and it seems to be spammy turtles all the way down: Special:Contributions/2003:CF:BF2E:CB93:C57A:B1D9:F615:FA24/36. This Talkspace search turns up a few more such pages, from 2018. The spamming IP self-identifies as a descendant of the general, in Talk:Aristide Razu/Archive 1 from 2010, where almost every discussion on the page is by the spammer. I'll notify at 2003...FA24. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is apparently indeffed Aristiderazu (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JBW: because of this edit, removing TPA of this user in June 2020. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for now but that's not a long-term solution. Deb (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That range apparently includes some collateral: User talk:2003:CF:BF19:4380:20C7:556D:3A0C:61B3. Could we tighten the range and/or use an edit filter? Fences&Windows 10:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to range-block, there are definitely other users in the range I linked; that was my "discovery-range" link. If filters are possible, the search term is at least clear, and rare, which is good. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of edit note for grave personal attack and 4 letter words

Severe personal attacks in edit note and swear words: [104]. -89.15.237.233 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's out of order, but I recommend you use the article Talk page to discuss the improvements rather than getting into an edit war. Deb (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is: He is absolutely not interested in the article and the problems at all! - I wrote a lot of stuff in French that would be very helpful for an expert (which in the first place was the reason for the template "expert needed"). -89.15.237.233 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Deb has warned Bueller 007 for incivility.

89.15.237.233, the extensive notes in French on the talk page are not helpful because we need to discuss Descartes' work using secondary sources, not provide our own commentary on or analyses of his original writing. Some secondary sources in French were also provided in the talk page section "Form and Purpose of the Discourse", but no suggestion was given on precisely how this should affect the article itself. We can use French sources, but we prefer English when available. Rather than edit warring over the page notice, please explain in a new talk page section what additions or changes you are proposing and what sources you are basing this on. Fences&Windows 13:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:GIUTEDESCHI

I have recently been editing Order of Prince Danilo I as it falls under my interest in orders and decorations. I removed many of the parts of it that were uncited, or were only cited from original research or interested parties. The page has been a victim of editing from sockpuppets of banned editors. Today I received the following message on my talk page that in my mind is a very clear legal threat. I have bolded the relevant part of the message.

"you have deleted authentic and truthful information. Dear Sir with the pseudonym Ortolan57, I am writing about your intervention that deleted all the news relating to the recipients of the Royal Order of Danilo I of the Royal House of Montenegro, and other news relating to the order and roles of the Royal House on the page news that you have deleted is news that comes from a source authorized to confirm. And not only is this Source authorized to confirm but it is the only one who can. In fact, I am the official representative of the royal house of Montenegro together with the diplomatic adviser of Prince Nicola Petrovich-Njegos, and only we own and manage the roles of all the orders of the royal house. His speech therefore showed that you are unaware of the current situation of the royal house. We therefore ask you to restore the correct information. I also remind you that the roles of the royal houses are private and are never published but are verifiable at the royal houses themselves, so demanding a link that confirms your claims is nothing short of a gross error. in bringing these changes I did not hide behind a pseudonym as you have but I put my name and surname and therefore I am an official source. Publications in the groups dedicated to the royal house are also available on social networks that report public photographs of the contributions you have canceled and therefore you want to deny the evidence of the facts that is visible in published photographs. If you persist in spreading erroneous news by deleting and not restoring the news posted by the royal house, the royal house of Montenegro will take legal action. Regards. GIUTEDESCHI"

Ortolan57 (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Incivility

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

---

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

See this edit summray and this one, for which there was a prior warning on their TP. MB 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Banned user blame and Shock blame

Hi All I am a new editor written a Draft Ignite India I have been continuously blamed by another editor that I am a banned user . I want to state that I am not a banned user and shock . I have written article purely on information proposal . It’s not a paid article. This is purely based on my own research. Please admin remove delegation tag and approve this article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omsaipower2021 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EditorF - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please settle this by create protecting the article and Draft versions of Ignite India‎ and Ignite India‎ Education, (and Draft:IGNITE INDIA EDUCATION if this is case sensitive). Repeated recreation of these is the focus of these socks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bonus points for vandalizing the salt tag on their way out. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Users User:JJNito197 and User:Onceinawhile continuous disruptive editing and major rework of article Arab Christians

User:JJNito197 is failing to see the violations of Wikipedia policies WP:DISRUPTSIGNSand WP:OR that he has been committing for the last 2 1/2 months in his major rework on the article Arab Christians in the opened discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_Christians#Same_issues_keep_being_brought_back_into_the_article_without_consensus_after_long_discussions_in_the_past.

User User:Onceinawhile seems to his main supporter and the duo is exhibiting Tag Team and Meatpuppet behaviors as per WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:TAGTEAM as you can see in the newly open discussion

Both User:JJNito197 and Onceinawhile decided to ignore the previous open discussion on the issues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 and instead embarked in their major unsourced rework of the article for the last two months violating WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and skipping their attempt to build consensus through the open discussion.

You can see all the unsourced additions and violations of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR that JJNito197 has done in his rework and which User Onceinawhile came pretty quickly to his rescue and reverted back here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1011781686&oldid=1011780064 and user JJNito197 also just chose to delete the message I left him in is talk page reminding him of Wikipedia policies he is violating as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJNito197&diff=1011797103&oldid=1011796851

The following is just a more detailed elaboration of their 3 main WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR violations. You can skip reading them if you prefer just to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1011781686&oldid=1011780064

1) Both users seem to have formed a duo to change the definition given by academic and reliable sources of what an Arab Christian is and means and claim that being an Arab is JUST an identity without providing any source for such a claim. Onceinawhile also decided to just removed original source the article had which is https://web.archive.org/web/20041105161338/http://www.arabicbible.com/christian/intro_arab_christians.htm citing the "author has extremist views" as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1012225745&oldid=1012176300) violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR

When provided them more academic sources with the accepted definition of what Arab Christian is such as: https://teachmideast.org/articles/arab-middle-eastern-and-muslim-whats-the-difference/ , https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/04/discovery/who-is-an-arab?lang=eng As well as the sources included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_identity#Categories, they are just choosing to keep ignoring them claiming that they lead to racial essentialism and that being Arab is JUST an identity unrelated to race and ascendance.

2) As part of JJNito197 and Onceinawhile's ultimate goal to make the readers believe that all Lebanese Melkites and Orthodox identify as Arab, including those of the diaspora, they have been adding personalities and added a cute table of political personalities they claim identify as Arab here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Diaspora. One example of their unsourced additions is Nassim Nicholas Taleb when Nicholas Taleb has himself proclaimed to be completely hardcore Anti-Arab and identifies with the Levantine-Phoenician pre-Arab identity as can be read here http://coevolutionist.com/muse/anti-arab-bigotry-ahistorical/. JJNito197 even added Nicholas Taleb to his little collage that he keeps reworking here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#/media/File:Arab_Christians_alternative_collage.jpg again violating WP:OR

3) JJNito197 then created another cute table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Affiliated_communities where he adds all the numbers of the adherents of those religious communities, including the adherents of those Christian denominations IN THE DIASPORA AS WELL (which are not genetically descendants of Arabs nor speak Arabic and are not culturally Arab) and have not added a single source for all those numbers for EACH of his YES, NO, MIXED inventions he added violating WP:OR once again

I am here to advocate for full reversal of all the rework that this two disruptive users have done in the last two months and banning both of them from editing in this article.

Onceinawhile is a very old editor and after 10 years in Wikipedia should know and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and set an example, which is definitely not what he is doing in this article and lately seems to be gaining a reputation inside and outside of Wikipedia for reworking articles, removing sourced content and adding unsourced content as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Final_warning and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Have_you_seen_this? . JJNito197 seems to be his devout tag meat and meatpuppet as of lately from what it looks like.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This WP:WALLOFTEXT is unlikely to result in any kind of action. Might want to try making a short, to-the-point post instead. But this really looks like an editing dispute, not a policy violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have condensed the text. This is not a content dispute. I am here to report two disruptive user committing a major rework of the article Arab Christians full of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR violations with the intent to push their Arabism agendas.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism on List of West Coast hip hop artists

This has been going on for six weeks: an unregistered user keeps adding artists from elsewhere in the United States, particularly New Orleans, to the List of West Coast hip hop artists. These edits are routinely reverted. user:Malcolmxl5 was good enough to protect the page for one week, but shortly after that time was up, the vandal reappeared. Is it possible to protect this page again, perhaps for a longer period this time? Instant Comma (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected for one month. The user is evading a block at 174.215.160.0/20 so a further block will be appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV, disruptive editing and conduct from User:Usagidot

Usagidot (talk · contribs) has edited several pages related to the WWII comfort women to remove references to sexual slavery in favor of voluntary prostitution. For example here [105], here [106] and here [107]. I and other editors have engaged in long discussions with him about neutral point of view and verifiability, mostly on his talk page and the Ianfu talk page. He refuses to listen, instead reverting and posting statements like "You have to show me completely perfect evicence. Where is it?" and "If you have any complaints to me, you must remove that page, because he doesn't understand Japanese language at all. He seems like he just want to insult Japan and its people without any compelling evidence. I am asking where the evidence is. But he has no evidence. Do wikipedia and you accept false page?".

To me this seems like an editor who is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs and will not be convinced otherwise. Knuthove (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove I have been asking where the evidence is. However, you seem like you don't have it, right? That is why, you snitch on me on wikipedia. I am telling you that former comfort women sued Japan in 1991 for their unpaid balances. And I HAVE the complaint. Moon ok-ju demanded over $110,000 . And Ianfu means prostitutes in Japanese. Comfort women was translated from Ianfu. Of course, job posts in Korean and Japanese still exist. Why is it so difficult showing your compelling evidence to me? You shouldn't create uncertain page. Usagidot (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)usagidot

Looks like Usagidot is now blocked, so I guess this is resolved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please stop preempting me! I've blocked Usagidot indefinitely for promoting historical fabrications, which appear to be part of a discreditable (whitewashing) WP:FRINGE advocacy effort employing original research. El_C 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

user LSPWRDMAFIA

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

---

• LSPWRDMAFIA (talk · contribs)

New editor with three edits total:

1. [108] Making a defamatory statement against the subject of an article.
2. [109] Argues that Anything I have stated is public knowledge ...
3. [110] Threatening I’m going to report you for harassment and star a page for you and Wikipedia on social media to show how you operate.

Seems like WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLE to me. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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