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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior

My first interaction with this user was from this RfC on Marilyn Manson that I closed. In the RfC, Homeostasis continuously made uncivil comments and cast aspersions on other editors, to the point where I felt it necessary to mention it in my closure. I feel their comments in that RfC alone are enough to warrant action. That is not the only disruptive behavior that I've observed from them so far though. They have also started badgering other users here, here, here, and here. I think Homeostasis should be, at the very least, Tbanned from Marliyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have gotten engagement yet, so I'll offer my view, although my comments should obviously be read with the caveat that I'm WP:INVOLVED as one of the users Homeostasis has been badgering. Taken as a whole, I think the user's behavior paints a pretty clear picture of disruption.

I first encountered them after proposing that Manson's article include mention of the sexual abuse allegations against him. They failed to assume good faith from the start, which is certainly not model behavior, but which somewhat comes with the territory when one edits in controversial areas. Their behavior persisted and worsened over the course of the RfC, as FormalDude (the uninvolved closer) noted.

Then there was their behavior giving me this edit warring notice. I'll copy my reply:

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested.

I find it highly difficult to believe that Homeostasis, an experienced editor, was unaware of the definition of edit warring and thought that it was genuinely appropriate. Giving another editor an edit warring notice to vent your frustration at them or attempt to sully their talk page is not at all appropriate.

Our next interaction came about due to an initially unrelated happening on my talk page, a pretty standard case of (now blocked) IP makes disruptive edits containing severe BLP violations, I (and others) revert, and IP turns around and accuses me of being the article subject. The IP's edits on my talk page were revdel'd per standard procedure for attempted outings, but Homeostasis then posted this, taking up the IP's cause and insinuating that their allegation had merit. At that point, I decided to give them a more forceful reply, warning them about WP:HOUNDING and asking them directly not to interact with me further. They ignored that request, first with a reply on my talk and then (after reverting the reply) with a ping on their own talk.

Homeostasis has certainly contributed quality content to Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to others to decide precisely how this should be handled, but I agree with FormalDude that some action ought to be taken to prevent them from causing further disruption. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• My involvement in this began on August 26, 2021, when I took a look at the RfC page for biographies to check whether I had done my first RfC correctly. I noticed the Manson RfC, something I hadn’t heard about before, started reading up on it, and made two edits to the body of the article: removing content not supported by the cite and adding content with RS.

Homeostasis07, an editor that—to my knowledge—I had never come across before, reverted the latter edit and accused me of edit warring in the edit summary and on the Talk page. When I asked them to assume good faith, I got high-horse lectured and or-else threatened ("before I take this further"). After I explained my reasoning, they accused me of "nasty misinterpretation of sources", a "completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence", "not paying close enough attention" to the article, the sources, and the case, and of incompetence in general, "expecially when it comes to controversial subjects." I then suggested the editor step away from the article until they had cooled off and examined their own POV.

Looking at my contribs page, I just realized that there was another interchange. Before my second edit of the main space, I voted and added a comment on the Talk page which was answered with the first edit-warring accusation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That obviously hasn’t happened. Seems to me that the closer correctly decided that a clear majority of the participants answered the RfC question (should the lead mention the allegations of sexual assault) with "yes", without a qualifier, MANDY or otherwise, and that they bent over backwards to accommodate Homeostasis07’s view. It also looks to me as though Homeostatis07 thinks they have some sort of ownership of the article. After the closer added the sentence per the outcome of the RfC, Homeostasis07 immediately added a WP:MANDY comment, claiming that there was no consensus for the closer’s version. IMO a time-out from the page would be appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

From the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have never threatened to "out" anyone, despite what's been insinuated above. As someone who was on the receiving end of one of those threats several years ago, I am keenly aware of the outing policy. I never threatened to do that, would never do such a thing, and if I ever gave anyone that impression, I humbly apologize. That being said, the now-banned IP did raise what I still believe to be one legitimate concern which, to me, can be demonstrably evidenced within Sdkb's contributions log. Sdkb was obtuse and threatening in their response. I emailed my concerns with corresponding diffs to the team at COI Noticeboard, per the template there. I'm sure we all eagerly await the results of their investigation.

Regarding the RfC, the key issue was not whether the allegations be included on the article at all – Marilyn Manson#Abuse allegations has existed since the story broke on Feb 1 – but instead how the allegations be presented in the lead. During the RfC, Sdkb argued that genuine policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE be disregarded in favor of the WP:MANDY essay, which argues against any denial being included. That an experienced editor would cite an essay in favor of genuine policies in such a serious matter is beyond my comprehension. In the RfC, six votes (including one yes vote) specifically argued against the proposal as initiated by Sdkb (to exclude denial). A maximum of 3 votes – Sdkb, Space4Time3Continuum2, and I generously include Idealigic's vote, who said "based on points provided by Sdkb." – supported. All other votes did not address at all how the allegations be presented, so how FormalDude came to his initial assessment that consensus of the RfC supported Sdkb's version of the lead is still up for debate. I was not the only user confused by how FormalDude came to their conclusion. I believe a close review is necessary at this point.

Regarding Sdkb's conduct, I would like to note that they have attempted to WP:CRYSTALBALL to include the allegations in Marilyn Manson's lead since the story broke on February 1; added an inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay, which they then cited in the RfC; tendentiously nominated a template for deletion just two hours after I placed it on Marilyn Manson's talk page as a means of deterring IPs and new users from adding particularly horribly-sourced and potentially libelous content (from Daily Mail, TMZ, Page Six, etc.). User has continually assumed bad faith on my part, arguing for several months at the RfC, the template for deletion discussion, and even here (above) that my status as the "top editor" of the article somehow precludes me from making constructive contributions to the subject or the entire project as a whole.

In response to Space4Time3Continuum2x, their statement above is misleading on several fronts. Their first edit to the article was a misinterpretation of the cited source. The source does indeed state that the "Mansonisabusive" Instagram page was set up in 2017, and that the accusers began contacting one another via that profile sometime later. It is an additional source (still included on the article) which confirms the September 2020 date (date always cited to that source). In their link above "explain[ing their] reasoning" (i.e., this one), Space4Time3Continuum2x said: "Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses." They proceeded to link to 5 different sources, none of which supported this highly-inflammatory and undue statement. During the RfC, this user also repeatedly claimed that Marilyn Manson did not specifically deny the allegations, which was categorically untrue.

Apologies for the long response. I've tried to be as brief as possible, but 3 users piling on in such a manner does not afford one much brevity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Here's the actual !votes from the RfC:

RfC !vote list
Users who supported mentioning the abuse allegations in the lead: Sdkb Space4Time3Continuum2 Idealigic Some1 FelipeFritschF RogueShanghai Loki JeffUK Total: 8 Users who opposed mentioning the abuse allegation in the lead: Homeostasis07 Spy-cicle ili Isaidnoway Sea Ane Total: 5

If you'll notice, the RfC was not about any specific phrasing–it was about whether or not to mention a section of the article in the lead. That is why my close ended the way it did. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In their RfC-initiating edit, Sdkb said the allegations "ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead". Substantial commentary during the RfC was then dedicated solely to how Sdkb introduced that content to the article; Sdkb specifically went on to cite WP:MANDY as a justification for their edits, which was directly supported by two (maybe three) users but opposed by six (see above, or the RfC). In your initial closing statement, you directly quoted Sdkb's version, which you immediately re-added to the article. But here, you're saying you reduced the entire RfC to simple yes/no numbers to re-add Sdkb's preferred version, tangibly disregarding the nuts and bolts of the RfC in the process and the lack of support Sdkb's version of the content received.

Since this is the RfC for which content added to the article will be dictated for the foreseeable future, I believe a close review is genuinely appropriate at this point, based on what FormalDude is saying here. It may not change much in the long run, considering FormalDude's subsequent edits to the talk page ([1], [2]), but there are serious questions here. That FormalDude also said in this edit summary: "I believe WP:MANDY is applicable here" is most worrying. MANDY is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not applicable anywhere on-site. Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand behind my closure of the RfC and am fine with it being reviewed. I think your suggestion of a TBan for me is ridiculous, but let's see what others think. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading through this RfC as an uninvolved user who has never, to my knowledge, edited the Marilyn Manson article, and did not participate or even know about this RfC until now, I support @FormalDude's closure. It is an accurate summary of the consensus there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 14 day block

A pause for reflection seems appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I held off !voting on this, since I had hoped that being brought to ANI would humble Homeostasis and get them to commit to better behavior, enabling us to go with a lesser sanction. But their long reply above contains no admission whatsoever that any aspect of their behavior was inappropriate, instead doubling down on it. I think that anything less than a block like this would all but guarantee that the behavior will continue and subject other users and the encyclopedia to further disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In other words, sit back and not address what I genuinely consider to be inappropriate actions on the part of others? I did apologize for several things above. And will again here. I apologize to everyone involved for being argumentative, and sometimes downright rude, during the course of the RfC. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson Tban. After seeing Homeostasis double down in their arguments, which are mostly strawmen, I think a break is needed. I also think that at this point their outside feelings are preventing them from editing neutrally, and propose a topic ban from all Marilyn Manson related articles. I appreciate Homeostasis's apology above, but I still believe these sanctions are necessary. ––FormalDude talk 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, indifferent on block. It looks like Homeostasis can't step back from this, and has continued arguing the point above. Further, immediately calling for the RFC closer to be TBANed just strikes me as retaliatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the statement below, I'm willing to withdraw my support for the TBAN and just see how things go from here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I find it difficult to take sudden reversals of attitude when a user is on the verge of being blocked as indicative of much other than the desire to avoid being blocked. The recent comments persuade me that a TBAN may not be needed, but I think it would be a mistake to go with nothing. Homeostasis has a repeated pattern of stepping across the line and then stopping/backtracking just enough to avoid consequences (e.g. at my user talk), and if we allow that to continue, we'll be back here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Normally I'd agree, but for once the response seemed sincere. If not, this provides us with enough WP:ROPE for an indef block later. I do not see enough support for a temporary block right now, especially this long after the events in question, so that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support with a Marilyn Manson TBAN. This user cannot drop the stick, and appears very very invested in that article, to the point of badgering other users away from contributing, harassing other users about their RfC votes, and badgering away an RfC closer because, it appears, they did not like the outcome. This is precisely the situation in which a TBAN is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, per points I raised above, as a punitive measure against one editor when the other three editors involved displayed poor editorial judgement. At its heart, this is an issue of policy against the repeated use of an unvetted essay and resultant edit warring. I could have handled some things differently, and I apologized twice above for those, but I'm afraid I can't apologize for expecting other users to adhere to policy, and worry about the precedent being set here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I've had the pleasure of reviewing many of Homeostasis07's articles on Marilyn Manson, some of which were done as review trades, and some just because I enjoy reading his work. Over several years, we each have infrequently let the other know if we have a new FAC that needs comments. If you look at the diffs from before he started working on the Marilyn Manson articles, there's no denying his contributions have serious merit. There's also no denying he can be hot-headed when things don't go his way. I don't think the issue here is Marilyn Manson. I think Marilyn Manson is one of a broad selection of topics he is interested in, and the underlying issue is a lack of assuming good faith, and that by default he takes any opposition personally as opposed to constructively. When one of my FACs failed several years ago, he seemed to take it more personally than I did, and left a comment voicing his annoyance on the talk page of the main person who opposed my nomination, which I did not think was a constructive way of moving forward.

Nevertheless, many of the Marilyn Manson articles were in extremely poor shape before he took it upon himself to improve them. I feel a topic ban does not take into account the overwhelming effort he has put in to genuine improvements in these articles, and therefore oppose such a measure. I do not oppose a temporary block on editing in general as I agree some action needs to be taken. A topic ban strikes me as nothing short of extreme for an initial punishment in this matter, especially when it remains to be seen if a temporary block may have a sobering effect on his ability to interact with others. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that WP:MANDY, as essay I'd not previously heard of before reading the current dispute, seems to have been treated as policy rather than an essay by others, a point which seems to have been lost along the way and (rightly or wrongly) overshadowed by Homeostasis07's response to it being used as such. I think the essay is an absurd opinion and could not oppose it more wholeheartedly, though that's a discussion for somewhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they won't react in the same disruptive manner when the next dispute doesn't go their way. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand, however, I don't see what there is to lose in giving him once chance before a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN: I am in agreement with Damien Linnane. I understand that Homeostasis07 can be hot-heated and take matters too personally, but I feel a TBAN is too extreme a response for this, especially given the work he has put into these articles. He would ideally learn from this experience (and a temporary block if that does occur). I do not oppose a temporary block either as I do understand and agree that some action should be taken for this and that seems like a more appropriate response. I think it would be better to do the temporary block and then see how he grows from that.

As an aside, I have also never heard of WP:MANDY. It doesn't help that I'm an American and I honestly have no idea who Mandy Rice-Davies is. I think it is slightly odd to treat this essay like a policy. I do not agree with the essay either, but as Damien Linnane, that is a different conversation entirely so that would be best suited elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What Damien and Aoba have said here has certainly given me food for thought. Without even realizing, I have been taking things too personally and been a hot-head for quite some time, causing problems for even the people I've worked with on multiple occasions. I apologize to everyone here and promise to correct this behavior immediately. I'd even agree to a permanent site-wide ban should the behavior ever occur again, which I swear now never will. Sorry for all the trouble guys. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block or TBAN. No evidence of consistent disruption or any other history of incidents in the topic area. The only possible action that could be taken is a warning about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

CIR editor; lack of communication

• 919499sp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

None of their edits are tagged as being from mobile devices, so likely not a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, so likely that they are ignoring or are not able to comprehend the issues about their editing, which beyond the lack of formatting notably include a stunning lack of basic writing skills (spelling/grammar/even just coherence). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly ELL/using automated "blind idiot" translations? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a liability and a time sink. Persistently adding misplaced external links instead of references, despite numerous warnings. No response to messages on user talk page, so a CIR block seems the only option. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this report was raised, 919499sp has made just one edit - this, which if anything is worse than usual: the last portion isn't even a valid URL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The URL works for me if I copy and paste it into my browser. The date is wrong, though. The death occurred on March 5, not 6. That doesn't mean the user shouldn't be blocked, just saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, doesn't look like they're responding to or even acknowledging concerns. "CIR" can stand for "communication is required", too, and obviously that is also missing here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Still (today) adding misplaced external links instead of references, despite all the warnings. Still no sign of attempting to learn or to communicate, so CIR block still seems the only option. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Emergency Block

For user Ebbedlila. Running some automated tool to spam tags to thousands of articles. Most are incorrect. I have rollbacked some of them until I can take a look at each. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, they feel some nineteenth-century Zamindar to be an Indian politician.

A college is an Indian politician.

A social organization is an Indian politician.

A branch of Buddhism is an Indian politician.

A prominent actress who barely dabbled for a year with a minor party is an Indian politician.

There are countless cases like these.

A very polarizing figure of Kashmir is an Indian politician.

A child rights activist is an Indian politician as is some social worker.

A bureaucrat is an Indian politician.

An Indian Independence activist is an Indian politician.

A career-diplomat is an Indian politician. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

They have already stopped over an hour before this post. I will revoke AWB access until this issue is resolved. Please notify them of this thread as required by the big yellow box that you see when you edit this page. ST47 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for my errors. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the mess editing like that. I had went through a series of categories, specifically Category:Indian politicians by century and just picked through some before I just went through them all. I missed a bunch because I just held down the enter key. Ebbedlila (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ebbedlila, what are you going to do to fix the incorrect edits that you have made among the correct ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will go through each of them to review. I would also request that someone mass revert me for every edit in October 20221. Ebbedlila (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I feel like I'd get bored after holding down an enter key for over two hours. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Ebbedlila: The other suggestions/warnings in your talkpage history are kinda irrelevant here, but this suggestion about using previews was given just 9 days ago. Kindly be careful with mass edits, especially with AWB whenever you get back the access to it. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Usernamekiran:, honestly, I want it back soon. I do wish to re-do similar edit, but using previews this time. Something, I am regretful that I didn't do. Ebbedlila (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ST47: and Phil Bridger, I had earlier requested a mass rollback for myself and completed by Elli. I am truly sorry for all the mistakes I have done. I should have been better at this.

I hope that I can regain the AWB access for future use. To remedy such errors, I will stick to typos, and avoid adding short descriptions such carelessly in the future, even if it means formal restrictions/warning. In the meantime, I had went through some of my edits and “manually” re-added some short descriptions as they were accurate.

Ebbedlila (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Ebbedlila: further reading: WP:AATP. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive paid editor, possible sockpuppetry on Public Investment Fund by User:Riyadhcafe87

This is my first ANI request so I will apologize in advance if I make any mistakes in formatting. I did not know exactly what noticeboard category this would fall under nor what possible action to request so I have created this section here.

I was first made aware of the article on the Public Investment Fund (to be referred to as PIF) by Riyadhcafe87 yesterday after being notified for an RfC (full discussion here). Riyadhcafe87 is a paid editor who works for the PIF, as disclosed on their user page. The RfC concerned removal of claims in the lead of the PIF's obscurity and lack of knowledge about the fund's investments (see diff for state of lead at start of discussion). Riyadhcafe87 had made 2 requests on the talk page before hand: an edit request that was declined by Quetstar and a WP:3O (here) to remove a recent addition to the lead to include the same claims as those in the RfC that notified me. The edit request was declined due to not being written from a NPOV as a COI editor, while Pyrrho the Skeptic remarked that an RfC should be started to fully discuss the matter of the 3O. Thus, the aforementioned RfC.

RFC itself

The RfC claimed that criticism of the PIF as obscure was "not a prominent enough line of commentary for PIF". However, myself and other editors (Snooganssnoogans, Quetstar, Huldra) believed it was prominent enough, while other editors (Pyrrho) had more issues with the old date of the source than the claim itself. The proposal was to remove it from the lead, but note that similar criticism had been removed from the body by an IP address here.

I believe Riyadhcafe87 discussed in multiple ways that were disruptive:

• Moving the goalposts

He kept asking for more and more sources on the PIF being non-transparent, even after they were provided. I provided many sources diff, which he then rebutted as either not relevant, asking for a source when none is needed (non-membership of an organization where the members are listed on its website), or not truly addressing the criticism I had brought up "this is another point" "this looks like the same article" (diff). Note: One of my sources was a deadlink, which I have fixed today.

Instances of him continuing to ask for sources after I had listed them, even after the RfC was closed: diff, diff, diff.

Him never responding to a very long reply I made outlining my perspective on the topic: diff of my edit

• WP:Wikilawyering

I hope I am not using this term incorrectly, if I am please educate me on what term to use best as I do not want to fall into name-calling. He kept using WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE as an argument for removing criticism of the PIF due to "undue weight", and while some were correct uses (just calling for more sources), after some time they became incorrect. These were either explicit or implicit:

• diff
• diff

Used WP:CIVIL while ignoring calls to let it go:

• Use of civil diff
• Ignoring calls to let it go and accusing Quetstar of trying to cause a firediff

• Failed to properly disclose WP:PAID until after months of editing and start of RfC

here

• Fallacious argumentation

See my previously linked edit calling them out diff as well as another one I made diff.

Similar conduct in other sections of the talk page

• Moving the goalposts/Wikilawyering diff

• WP:Bludgeoning

I preferred to call this out when referring to the whole talk page rather than within the RfC as it is then when it is most clear. Some of these actions could be understood as impatience but overall almost feel like harassment as they frequently do not let 24 hours pass before re-pinging an editor (forcing a response):

• Quetstar

18 August diff

• Snooganssnoogans

I will preface this by saying that Snooganssnoogans' conduct also was not great, but he edited in good faith and has a history going over many years of editing in controversial articles against paid editors/vandals, examples: Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies, sockpuppetry, list in their user page, and just a cursory look at their contributions reveals a massive ammount of undid revisions to PR edits. I'm sure they can add notable examples if they feel so inclined, but I think that is unnecessary.

WP:Bludgeoning: diff, diff (the reason I think this is bludgeoning is that a {{no ping}} mention would have been enough).

Possible sockpuppeting

I'm not entirely sure of this one, but thought I'd mention it so more experienced editors can judge for themselves. There have been 2 IP edits on the page which might be connected to Riyadhcafe87:

• IP1: diff, made from an IP which on a quick search appeared as in the same street as multiple Saudi holding companies, which could possibly have connections to either the PIF, the Saudi Government, or Riyadhcafe87.
• IP2: diff, made from a mobile IP 20 minutes from the Saudi London Embassy, and multiple Saudi government offices in London. Most likely to be Riyadhcafe87, due to their proficient level of English and disclosed connection to the PIF.

Conclusion

I don't really know what exactly would be the correct action for dealing with Riyadhcafe87, but I strongly believe that the page should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism/PR edits from IP users in the future. Same goes for connected articles Future Investment Initiative Institute, Mohammed bin Salman, and Yasir Al-Rumayyan, which are frequent targets of IP edits, paid editors connected to Saudi ministries or the PIF, and controversial articles. Please do respond on what your thoughts on the matter are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

@A. C. Santacruz: If you suspect sockpuppetry, gather your evidence and create a case page at WP:SPI; the people there have the tools needed to look under the hood and can link accounts to isp address and such. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Just thought I'd include the ip edits here as well if a semi-protection is considered. Much appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update, SPI report filed in appropriate channel. However, rest of my incident report here is still needing discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I did a preliminary sweep and found two suspect accounts. AS for the others mentioned, Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) has been blocked once and is apparently rough around the edges, but I see nothing in the contribution history to suggest anything other than a hard contributing wikipedian. Huldra (talk · contribs) has been blocked a few times for editos on or relating to the middle eat, but not this region, and the diversity of edits and timeline cast major doubt that this is a sock account or an SPA account. As with Snooganssnoogans, I see only a hard working wikipedia contributor. It may simply be a case of too few participants and perhaps a a few ugly words, so maybe whats need most is a reminder that everyone should Assume Good Faith, Keep Calm & Carry On. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was no sockpuppetry suspected of these users. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at everybody mentioned here just to be safe. I've been the point man for an LTA case and its been a doozy, so it's gotten to be second nature for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair, thanks for your due diligence :D. Hope I didn't sound too passive-aggressive. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This user has really tested my patience. If I was an admin, I would have blocked him forever. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note additional WP:BLUDGEONING since nominating. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, My primary interest is in Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, my secondary interest is in the Gulf States (ie GCC-states). Now there is a big difference between my primary and secondary interests, and that is the huge amount of paid professional punters involved with the GCC-countries. Make no mistake: the GCC rulers pay millions $$$ each year to (mostly Western) "Reputation managers"/"advertising companies"/"PR firms" etc, in order to "manage their reputation" online. I see them all over (see eg Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Paid_editing?); they often work "in concert"; some very clever/experienced working togeter with one or more "foot soldiers". I'm not a very good "sock-hunter", but be aware; articles like Public Investment Fund would be prime area for these paid punters, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for productive things to do on this encyclopedia, I would suggest helping to clean up pages related to rich corrupt authoritarian countries and looking closely at prolific editors in those areas who never ever add any negative content to those pages (despite the prevalence of negative RS coverage) while adding trivia and poorly sourced puffery. Pages related to the Gulf dictatorships are rife with these weird editing patterns. These editors get upset whenever content is added about the human rights situation in these countries, the wealth of the rulers, or the nature of the authoritarian regimes. I've raised it multiple times at the COI noticeboard, as well as highlighted problems on the RS noticeboard with the kinds of sources that these suspicious editors use[3][4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

These are examples from earlier today of the kind of behavior that I'm talking about.[5][6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not particpating in the above discussion, I have just noticed my edits being cited here. When multiple users raise concerns about additions of controversial statements and open discussions such as this or this or this or this or this etc ... on BLP articles, I think its important to reflect back on such concerns raised instead of blindly accusing others of malice to everyone who doesn't conform to the same views. Gorebath (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans please keep the discussion relevant to the conduct of Riyadhcafe87. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits

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

---

Egapikiw111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As can be seen here in one of their latest additions, this user ignores all requests and warnings on their talk page to source their edits and continues with their disruptive uncited behaviour. Please could an admin remind them about some Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:OWNTALK. Thanks. Robvanvee 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Eventually, something has to give (original stuff, me). El_C 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Ongoing incivility in Talk:Sex and gender distinction

On Talk:Sex_and_gender_distinction#Biological_sex there is significant incivility in discussion, flagrant use of yelling-type text styling, various instances of aspersions and personal attacks, and various parts which borders on a WP:NOTFORUM issue. It would be nice to have an uninvolved admin look into this behavior. (Note, this page is within the D/s GENSEX topic arena, additionally.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: one of the instructions at the top of this page says: Include diffs demonstrating the problem (bold in the original). Just linking to 100K+ talk page falls short as far as reports here go. El_C 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, can you please clarify which specific editors whose behavior you think is actionable by admins? And then notify them properly as instructed at the top of this page?

I do agree that the massive discussion is a trainwreck from beginning to end and for the past 24 hours-plus is in complete violation of WP:NOTFORUM. If any administrator, like El C, is willing to close the discussion, I welcome their doing so. Please put it and us out of its misery. You wouldn't even have to read the whole thing IMO; just say in the close to start a new discussion if there is a proposal for a specific edit and say to keep it civil, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: And if you're going to provide diffs about a specific editor(s) you must notify them of the discussion here on their talk page(s), quoting the instructional header at the top of this page: You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Spent the last two hours reading this page, making a few comments in-between elsewhere. I still haven't found the first shred of incivility but I will grant the editor that my understanding may differ from theirs. I don't see the yelling in text unless they are equating a bold text as yelling. It's a very opinionated area of medical/biological science so it can be expected that people will be passionate and some tempers may flare. It appears everyone has handled it well considering. Unless anyone has diffs to point to something specific I don't see anything actionable. Others may have a different opinion. --ARoseWolf 14:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As one of the involved editors, I'd like to clarify that my bold text comments weren't intended as yelling, I felt there was a miscommunication happening between myself and another editor, and my use of bold text was an attempt at clarifying the thrust of my argument points. I'd also like to note that CycoMa has already apologised for what I perceived was a personal attack on my talk page, and I gladly accepted and hold no ill will against them. As others have said, it is an opinionated area and that people will have differing opinions and differing passions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t really perceive much of the stuff said there are yelling. Nor do I see what I said or others said as being uncivil, if there is incivility I assume it wasn’t intentional.CycoMa (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also as one of the involved editors - I was mainly bolding because I noticed one of the other editors, was having trouble reading large amounts of text. I actually added an edit summary after I went through and bolded specific salient points 'for the hard of reading' or something. Although there were some heated moments, I found the discussion productive, resulting in some useful new content being added to the article. Tewdar (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - quick, call the police, there's a spider in the bath! 😱 Tewdar (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And KFC has run out of chicken! Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

In the UK last week, lots of people were dialling 999 because the shops ran out of petrol! Tewdar (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User FangLeone1916

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

---

• FangLeone1916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding redundant fields to infoboxes (nationality & citizenship), overlinking, adding WP:EASTEREGG links, etc. despite multiple warnings on their TP. No response, all of their edits have been to articles. In some cases, they have re-made these changes twice in the same article. MB 04:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Motorcycle Action Group again

Motorcycle Action Group was featured here very recently (archive discussion).

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

Now one of the people involved in edit-warring in that article, and with a COI as a director of the organisation, has been posting about the group on other editor's talk pages. This has included "outing" of some of those involved, e.g. this edit.

Surely outing is wrong? At the least his outing edit(s) should be struck from the record and his continuing antagonism must be grounds for a topic ban. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Incidents of outing should be emailed to the oversighter's mailing list, following the instructions at WP:Oversight. Posting them here on one of the busiest noticeboards on the site will only draw attention to it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour, I have merely sought to remove the libelous comments made about me on 25 September by my (losing) opponents in the recent chairmanship election. Any breaches such as the 'outing' you suggest are inadvertent for the simple reason that this is not a community I frequent and with whose customs am therefore unfamiliar. I am a UK Registered Independent Financial Adviser with a reputation to protect. The abusive edits made about me were clearly in breach of your policy re' libelling living persons. (Redacted) I refer you all to 10mm socket's white-knighting where he called me a 'potentially corrupt person'. Nice. Just compound the libel, why don't you? Anyhow, do what you like, but Wikipedia has seen the last contribution it will ever get from my company. We have donated substantial sums year in and year out for many years. Wikipedia can whistle for money in the future, and next time they ask for some, I'll tell them why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBirdNeil (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I have oversighted 109 words from the section above (marked (Redacted)), and a further 300 from Woodroar's user talk page. This was done per provision 1 of the oversight policy. The overall meaning of the message above by TBirdNeil has not been significantly altered. Please do not restore this content. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given TBirdNeil's repeated claims that statements made were libel, I'd say a WP:LEGAL block is in order. The fact they have an admitted COI is secondary, but still troubling. And then there's the outing... yeah, I can't see any reason to leave that account unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT sounds like an insult, but it isn't. It's germane. Let the bloke make his case. We have rules against libel. All that's at issue here is whether they apply.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having just seen the BLP violations and outing which were contained in the edit summaries at Motorcycle Action Group and which weren't redacted (I've revision-deleted them now), I similarly don't see any point in leaving this account unblocked, especially as the ranting above doesn't seem to indicate any intention to edit collaboratively. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, look at it from his point of view. We've published what he understands as libellous disinformation. He's tried to work out who was responsible for it, and he's tried to find the right levers to push to make us change the content he's unhappy about. This isn't someone who's here to build an encyclopaedia, this is someone who's here to stop us smearing an organization that's close to his heart. Of course he isn't here to edit collaboratively. Of course he hasn't read and doesn't care about our 150,000 words of rules and guidelines. To treat him like a troll or a vandal is to totally miss the point.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sick and tired of seeing people blocked for simply asserting that something may be libelous. Saying that's little different from saying something's a BLP violation or a copyright violation, and is not a legal threat. A legal threat is a legal threat. EEng 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agreeing with some other commenters above, objecting that content is defamatory is not by itself a blockable legal threat, any more than objecting that content is a copyright violation is. It is preferably where possible for editors to use different wording, but that is not something that newcomers to our site have reason to know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to flatly disagree. The second someone says "You must remove this libelous material" the unspoken implication is "or else I'll sue." You don't use the terms "libel" or "defamation" unless you're trying to make people afraid of the legal system crashing down on their heads. WP:LEGAL is a thing because of the chilling effect that kind of accusation has on editors. This is someone with an explicit COI and who attempted to out people they were in a disagreement with. I am not inclined to give a charitable reading to their use of the word "libel." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Except everything you're saying about WP:LEGAL makes it seem like you need to reread it. EEng 02:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no legal threat (at least, I don't see a diff with one) and HandThatFeeds is wrong. Describing a living person as "Disgraced" based on a personal website (aka not WP:RS) is accurately described as libel and has correctly been removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:NadVolum disruptive behavior

Over at Talk:Julian Assange there is a fair bit of incivility, snipping and general snark. But this user has tired to use OR conspiracy theories about some kind of press blackout to argue for their edits. There was a discussion about this on my talk page, where they repeated the claim [[7]], and [[8]], the response to my saying this [[9]] is to post this pointy comment on the article talk page [[10]] literally daring me to report them. Its sole purpose seems to be confrontational.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes a conspiracy theory is of course subjective. It's not clear how you think this editor has disrupted WP; all your diffs are to talk pages, where OR is not prohibited. The first diff is presumably an error [?]. Cambial foliage❧ 10:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Errr I am reporting the fact they made a deliberately wp:pointy comment, not that they pedalled OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This was meant to be the first diff [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pointy editing is disrupting WP to make a point. So you need to demonstrate that they disrupted Wikipedia, not that they said something you disagreed with on talk. Cambial foliage❧ 10:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the 'conspiracy theory' from the media critique source Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:- MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR.. NadVolum (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And here's the full discussion on the talk page User_talk:Slatersteven#Nudge_nudge?. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My comment re Stundin and Yahoo relate to Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_inclusion_of_Sigurdur_Thordarson_claims and Talk:Julian_Assange#Request_for_comment_on_Yahoo_report where there were discussions about the topics and the discussions were prematurely terminated by them starting RfC's with a paricular wording. You can see more about my complaint at the second RfC. NadVolum (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Some might view an article by a former member of the academic staff at Glasgow University Media Group (wiki) and published academic author as a relevant article to the talk page; others might view it as a conspiracy theory. All of which is not relevant here. Where is the disruptive editing? Otherwise this section is a waste of time, and could represent WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Cambial foliage❧ 11:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The disruption is daring me to report them then deliberately making a comment and pointing out how it (in their mind) was cause for a report. As I said they were just tying to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept that I am peddling conspiracy theories. If I did not clearly reject what you said it would looked like I accepted what you said. That you're annoyed by that is your problem. You needn't have accused me of it or 'promised' to send me to ANI for it in the first place or done 'nudge nudge' humor about me. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything worthy of action here. If mild snark on talk pages and a few elbow pokes rougher-than-ideal are sanctionable, the filer has indulged in that as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There could be some admin actions necessary, but not regarding NadVolum. The stonewalling of the Yahoo content and some bad faith canvassing at other noticeboards has become very disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about what to do about the forum notices. I have warned them they are treading on thin ice. But was unsure if it did cross over into canvasing, as they were careful how to word it. But it was clear the notices were not neutrally worded. I would also remind people to issue notices if they raise concerns here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

But I agree there are general issue of lack of civility and assumptions (or outright accusations) of bad faith from both sides, and it is making it very hard to try an steer a neutral course.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd just become aware of the canvassing issue, after looking into the background to the thread started by SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the reliable sources noticeboard. SPECIFICO has started three different threads, all with identical wording to the first sentence ("Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media."), at WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:RSN. [12]][13][14]] These are not even remotely neutrally-worded notices drawing attention to a discussion. They are blatant canvassing, and personal attacks on other contributors, as SPECIFICO should be well aware. In my opinion (as someone uninvolved in the dispute at the Assange article) sanctions would seem appropriate. As for whether any other contributor has crossed the line in that dispute, more evidence may be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing there relates to any opinion on either side of the issues under discussion on the article talk page. Canvassing is an attempt to solicit editors on one side or the other. I stated no position as to the RfC, only pointed any interested editors to the discussions at the article page. Soliciting uninvolved editors on the widely-watched site-wide noticeboards is an effective way of broadening the discussion and reaching a decisive resolution one way or the other. There are no personal attacks. Various editors have themselves stated their biases on the article talk page, and I named nobody. The statement was to indicate the importance of participation by new uninvolved editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So, if your clearly partisan description of contributors to the discussion regarding the Assange article wasn't an attempt to 'solicit editors on one side or the other', what exactly was its purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The content dispute is not a partisan dispute. The purpose, as I said above, was to emphasize the need for uninvolved editors to join the discussion, given the biases declared by various previous participants. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether the dispute is partisan. I'm asking why you posted such clearly partisan characterisations of contributors to the discussion on multiple noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't go so far as saying sanctions are warranted. @Slatersteven @SPECIFICO, the first sentence in your request on those noticeboards does seem like its steering a certain crowd you may want to see at this article. Just look at it objectively, I know you can see what is being pointed out and its not any more malicious than you making the comment in the first place, which I dont believe was malicious to begin with. I don't know if it would be agreeable or not but maybe if you struck that portion of the sentence it would be better. I think bringing awareness in asking for fresh eyes to look at the article is great. It could bring in new perspectives and that's always welcomed, regardless of their personal views. Looking at the page I see way too much incivility and personal attacks going back and forth so I didn't go far into it. I don't have an opinion about the subject but I do implore everyone to act with civility towards each other, for what that's worth. --ARoseWolf 17:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC) --17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) --18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not my requests.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry @Slatersteven. I had you on my mind when I was typing out my comment because I was reading what you had written on one of the noticeboards. I meant @SPECIFICO and never came back and changed it. My apologies to you. I struck your name and added the intended. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Re your appeal for civility, if you ever do have a proper look at Talk:Julian Assange may I suggest you try seeing if you can tick off every point at WP:STONEWALLING. Might stop you getting involved and annoyed! NadVolum (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ps yes I think your idea of striking would be a good way of indicating the message has been received. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with other's who say that SPECIFICO's notifications violate WP:CANVASSING. I don't know if there was really a need to raise the issue in 3 different noticeboards but I wouldn't generally consider that a problem beyond wasting time of participants of the board. However per our guidelines notifications or RfCs need to be neutrally worded and the first sentence at BLPN was far from that. I don't think we need sanction at this stage if it's a one time thing, but SPECIFICO needs to avoid canvassing in the future or be subjected to a topic ban on such notifications. The way to ask for uninvolved editors is to say something like "looking for more uninvolved editors" or simply say nothing since I think most people who see a noticeboard notification recognise the desire is particularly for more uninvolved editors. It's most definitely not claiming there's a problem because the talk page is full of editors who lean in one direction. Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing is an attempt to solicit editors on one side or the other. Indeed. This is exactly what Specifico chose to do in this edit at WP:RSN. Pinging two out of eight editors that had commented in the earlier discussion is not a neutral broadening of the conversation. Doing so with the bland comment who commented here previously suggests an attempt to disguise it. Cambial foliage❧ 21:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Those pinged were the two editors who commented on the substance of the issue you raised there, and not editors who just said that the thread was not appropriate. After those two groups, the remaining editors were already active on the article talk page and did not need a ping to participate there. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the selective pinging. That actually raises significant concerns, since any selection criteria beyond something like active in the past few weeks and not topic or site banned or blocked risks at a minimum unconscious bias. I'd note that User:Mikehawk10 was pinged. Their contribution to the closed RfC on RSN was

Are you asking us to evaluate whether specific content is due in the article? There are several other considerations beyond reliability here. This board is not the correct place for this RfC. I imagine that this would be best handled on the article talk page if you would like an RfC, or on the NPOV noticeboard if you’d like more unstructured discussion. RSN is a place for evaluating a particular source's reliability, not the inclusion of specific content.

While they did say "There are several other considerations beyond reliability here", but this seems a few weak comment on the "substance of the issue". Still visible on the article talk page is MikeHawk10 NAC of a discussion as no consensus which is effectively in SPECIFICO's favour since it resulted in the exclusion of content SPECIFICO opposed.

Meanwhile User:PaleoNeonate was not pinged. Their contribution was "Some of the sources like The Guardian are reliable. If the material is DUE is another matter and this should indeed normally be discussed at the article's talk page." which seems much more of a commentary on the substance of the issues and also suggests a chance of opposition to SPECIFICO's view. PaleoNeonate has no active comments on Talk:Julian Assange. I'm no way suggesting MikeHawk10 did anything other than accurately gauge the consensus or that SPECIFICO was intentionally choosing to ping editors they expected to favour them. Since PaleoNeonate's comment was an indented reply, it could have easily been missed.

But this situation is precisely why editors should not use ad-hoc selection criteria especially not without discussing with participants first. It's easy to create a perception that there was bias which is harmful to us all no matter if there was non even unconscious. The risk of unconscious bias is another reason why editors should avoid such adhoc selection criteria. Without adhoc selection criteria, there is no such risk and any mistakes like not notifying PaleoNeonate would also be easy to pick up. That said a good thing about selective pings is unlike non-neutral notifications they're easy to fix so I will do so. </>

Also even if those pinged participated on an RfC on RSN, it's unclear to me why you would ping them to a discussing which just tells them to go to the talk page. It seems better to ping them to the talk page. This is a minor issue, but as editors weren't informed of the RSN notification on the article talk page it gives the perception of a lack of transparency and as I said perceptions matter.

In other words, an all round very poor showing on the part of SPECIFICO.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth it to note that SPECIFICO was topic banned from Julian Assange for 2 weeks less than a year ago for also removing consensus text. In this case they've removed the text at least 3 times now [15], [16], [17], citing, among other things, that it is "disputed on talk." Yes, mostly by SPECIFICO. Now there's an open RFC that could probably be snow closed, as well as the already overwhelming consensus in a previous section to include this material. This type of disruption is a major time waster. Now add on the campaigning canvassing where editors are called "self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media," and I think we are well into reinstatement of the topic ban territory. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify I said ad-hoc above but it maybe wasn't the best word. What I meant was it's a criteria that whether reasonable, SPECIFICO just seems to have made up and didn't explain until now. Meaning there was no way for anyone to check their work indeed it's possible people might have even just assumed they pinged everyone. The fact it's subjective adds to these concerns given the reasons mentioned above namely perceptions of bias and possible unconscious bias. While I think it's somewhat clear here, it's easy to imagine comments where editor A feels there was no commentary on the issues and editor B feels there was. Mentioning you did this would at least allow people to check your work and decide if you criteria was reasonable and if your selections fitted your criteria. Better would be to discuss notifications first. Note this doesn't have to be a long discussion if it's uncontentious likely it'll be a case of 'hey I plan to ping editor A, B, C because they participated in discussion X but not editor D or E since they only said it was the wrong place and of course F and G are already here'. And hopefully one or more other editors will reply 'sure that seems a good idea' and with no disputes in a few days you can go ahead. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Nil Einne's assessment of the issue here. The perception is this was an attempt to bring specific editors to the the talk page and article that, in the very least, might have a favorable perception of SPECIFICO's views, more so than others. Whether that was the intent or not only SPECIFICO knows. Had they just requested more eyes on the article without injecting their view of the participants of the discussion and had they not selectively pinged specific editors, whatever the reason may be for that, then we probably wouldn't have been here discussing this or we could easily have dismissed it as not Canvassing. The word choice and selective pinging are in poor taste even if only from the perception standpoint.

@NadVolum, an aside to all of this, I believe one of the single greatest observations in statement ever found on Wikipedia is in that supplement. It reads, "The capacity of the human mind to engage in denial and rationalization can be impressive". A discussion I was involved in recently exemplifies this. An editor was against adding something new, even though it was reliably sourced, to an article because consensus was formed ten years ago on the article, in which this information was discussed but didn't have the evidential sources it does now, and they felt the added information went against that consensus. Rather than discussing it they stonewalled it and refused to allow it in the article. No matter how much I tried to point them to the fact that consensus can change and when we are presented with new evidence and additional sources, even if it has been discussed before, it can change consensus, they were incapable of seeing it going so far as to say I was driving away long-term editors because of my position. I'm not saying consensus needs to change every minute, we do need stability, but it can change and there is a process by which it is allowed to. But when we are so tied to a specific version of an article, especially one we have heavily edited, it can become difficult, even painful, to see it altered. I sympathize with them even if I disagree with them and I do believe they believe they are acting in good faith and I deal with them from that standpoint. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too! :-) I believe in working with probabilities but really the best I can do is to just try and cope with my biases and hope it's good enough. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I note that even after this discussion here, SPECIFICO is attempting to defend the post made at WP:BLPN, asserting that the talk page discussion is "not pro- or con- Assange".[18] If SPECIFICO really believed that to be the case, it would, in my opinion, have made made the description of the discussion at Talk:Julian Assange as "frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media" entirely pointless, if not downright irrational. If it isn't a pro-anti Assange thing, why does it matter who is a fan of what? This was clearly canvassing, in a particularly objectionable form, intended to attract contributors with specific opinions on the topic, and SPECIFICO's refusal to acknowledge the error suggests to me that maybe another, longer, topic ban might be appropriate. Along with a reminder that neither being a 'fan' or 'opponent' of something is in of itself of relevance during discussions between contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, should I make a formal proposal and see where that goes? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:Nuraini1011958

User Nuraini1011958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not provide any edit summary for any edit published including [19], [20], [21] and [22]. The user is uncommunicative; I have tried to engage in the Talk page Talk:Sepak takraw#August 2021 but the editor did not reply to the discussion. Instead, the editor decided to write on my page “Blocked” [23]. Please help me resolve this issue MrCattttt (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been taken care of it, removed the False block and I let the User:Nuraini1011958 know that that was inappropriate to use a block template since Nuraini1011958 is not a admin, It also seems that that was a false block as well because an admin would note it in a block log anyway. Chip3004 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not only because of the false block. The user is uncommunicative and reverting referenced content without any edit summary even though I have ping the user for a discussion. The editor did not make any contribution on the page but only interested on this one specific line in the page [24], [25], [26] and [27]. MrCattttt (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

SNL NOR from Pontiac

• 2601:408:C301:3EA0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 98.250.246.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Saturday Night Live (season 47)
• History of Saturday Night Live (2020–present)

Somebody from Pontiac, Michigan, US, has been violating WP:No original research for a few years at various Saturday Night Live topics. They refuse to change or communicate. Typical activity includes comparisons between various episodes, listing actors that did not appear although they were credited, naming various superlatives and "firsts" by comparing broadcasts, etc.

The IP4 has never been blocked but the IP6 was rangeblocked twice. Any suggestions about fixing this persistent problem? Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Noticing the two prior blocks of the IPv6 from last February (most recently by User:Ohnoitsjamie) and the common geolocation of the IPs to Pontiac, I've blocked the IPv4 and IPv6 for a month each. Since the user has been engaged in this pattern for more than a year, further blocks may some day be needed. Semiprotection could be an option but there are too many SNL-related articles for that to be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend a longer block for the /64 range given the long term disruption; 3 months at least. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, I've extended the /64 rangeblock to three months per your suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers - Possible disruptive editing

An RfC on Wehda Street airstrikes, regarding whether an alt-name should be included, and if it should whether it needed attribution was recently closed as "no consensus".

In line with WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:ONUS, I reverted back to the "most recent stable version", though it is worth mentioning that this version is liked by no one, but it was quickly reimplemented by Firefangledfeathers, in line with their preferred format (they preferred "included with no attribution"; the version as it stood during the RfC was "known in Arabic as ...", and the reimplemented version says "sometimes referred to as ...").

Two requests have been made for them to self-revert, but these were rejected, while attempts to find an intermediate "no consensus" compromise have failed, and so reluctantly I bring this here.

BilledMammal (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute brought here, a place where content disputes should not be brought. Why haven't you or another editor just put in the "most stable version" ? If what you say is correct, then you should have enough editors to make this stable without violating any edit warring policies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It does feel that way, which is part of the reason I was very hesitant to bring this here and wished to resolve it with discussion. As for "enough editors to make this stable without violating any edit warring policies" unfortunately that is not the case; most of the editors who agreed "attribution" have even less involvement in the area than I do, while that is not true of most of the editors who agreed with "no attribution". As such, I brought this here as while a single edit is typically below what we would consider disruptive, I believe it is made so by the failure to abide by WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS, and I didn't know where else to bring it (I also considered WP:AN3, but it seemed to fit there even worse) BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of this discussion and will be happy to accept the consensus of other editors/admins if my conduct here has been subpar. I do request that the section heading be made more neutral, though I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to make the change.

I don't believe my one edit can be viewed as disruptive editing. BilledMammal has stated that they oppose my edit, but they have not provided any reasoning against it at talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. And I believe my comments on the talk page, in both the RfC and the most recent discussion, speak to why I oppose it - this is not the place to restate them. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverting based on no consensus is at best filibustering and at worst tendentious editing. There is overwhelming consensus against removal of the content entirely, as shown in the RFC having exactly one person arguing against inclusion in the lead, and blanket removing the content because you dislike the attribution pushes it more to the latter imo. Claiming what has been in the article for over two months is not the most recent stable version also seems to be a curious definition of the words most, recent, and stable. nableezy - 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Most recent stable version" means, to the best of my understanding "not disputed", rather than "not edited warred over" - and I don't think we would want a definition different from that, lest we encourage edit warring rather than talk page discussions and RfC's. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In the RFCbefore section it can be readily seen that there was some sort of consensus around an altname even if not in the precise details around it so going back to a "no altname" position was I think, a rather unreasonable thing to do and while Firefangledfeathers might have took it too far back the other way, I don't think that was disruptive and now we have nearly resolved it, I believe, somewhere in the middle as might be expected.Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoax info

Abarsanti7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest registered account of the vandal described here. Their current modus operandi is to hide hoax info amongst seemingly benign edits, in this latest attempt adding additional information about whether the cover art is North American or European, trying to hide hoax info additions like this among them. Eik Corell (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing at a rapid clip, but I don't see the connection between this user and the IPs you point to. The current user is obviously repeating the same edits as Special:contributions/2600:8805:C400:649:0:0:0:0/64, which geolocate to Connecticut, not Ireland.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to come out and say it. I've looked through a bunch of their edits and I don't see a problem with them. Even that edit above seems to be pure good faith and not deliberate disruption. I've probably looked at 50 of them, and not a single one had an issue, all appear to be reasonable and good faith. They're mainly adding captions to the images in the infoboxes, something which is perfectly allowed and supported by that particular infobox template and guidelines. The captions also appear to be correct. I don't see disruption in those edits. And I don't see any issues with the edits of that IP range either.

@Bbb23: I'm actually very concerned here about User:Eik Corell's seeming abuse of the Rollback functionality here for rolling back edits that are clearly NOT vandalism, and lack of WP:AGF. They clearly didn't check those edits before clicking the Rollback button. Can someone convince me why this blocked happened and why there isn't actually a boomerang happening here? Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Before the named account was created, they used IPs. That in and of itself is fine. However, both the IPs and the named account proceeded at the rate of a quasi-bot. And when I look back at the IP edits, I see other users besides Eik Corell reverting their edits, especially when they inserted unsourced information of the kind described by Eik Corell. It's hard to believe this individual is anything but WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I must say I'm not entirely convinced. Some of their edits could be removed as unsourced, or tagged, but the vast majority are perfectly good beneficial edits. Even back for the IPs, adding the correct captions is not a wrong thing to do, and it's something that's easy to do quickly and doesn't take much effort to define as it's clear from the image what the caption should be (European or North American, if it's cover art etc.) Quasi bot or quick editor? Dunno. And there has never been a single attempt to communicate with this editor, not even an edit summary that I can tell. There are cases where I can easily make several edits a minute in certain areas. They all appear to be good faith. I will however again iterate that I'm concerned that Eik Corell is just jumping on the Rollback button for clearly non-vandalism edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any real comment on this, but I will note that at least one of their "cancelled version" edits might have weight; Curious George appears to have a cancelled version - though I don't know how reliable Gamespy is. However, I don't think they did the necessary research; I believe they pulled the cancelled version information off fansites, such as this one for Chicken Little, where it is unsourced.

I also don't know how easy it is to reliably identify the region for the cover-art of a release, but I assume it would be done through the game rating? BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Cover art can be used to ID between North America and Europe very easy. ESRB is for US and Canada and PEGI is for Europe (including UK). Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps a talk page discussion would have been warranted, particularly now they are registered; I don't know if any of their IP's had the topic raised, but the fact that they are on a dynamic IP could have easily resulted in them missing it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First things first, the cover art is not an issue. The issue is that it's used as a cover for the vandalism; You see an IP pop up and hit dozens of articles, but when you check a few of the edits, all you see are some wiki-gnome-ish infobox edits about cover art, and you assume it's all good. Combined with the constant IP switching, it's actually an excellent method to force vandalism through as most people do not scrutinize further edits after that. About the edits and platforms being cancelled, initially I remember spending quite some time trying to figure out whether these additions were legitimate or not -- whether the user was getting this information from somewhere, googling any specific companies mentioned, and I never could find anything supporting it from any reliable source. Whereas their earlier edits consisted primarily of this kind of stuff, their newest additions, like this one mentioned above go into specifics, and I suspect this, too, is a strategy to mislead editors; namedropping a studio that does exist, could potentially have been involved because a google search shows they've done similar stuff, again you assume it's all good. But none of it lines up when you actually research it, and that's why this vandalism and the tactics they're employing are so devious; The info they're adding is so minor and looks procedural so you assume it to be legit. And again, though somewhat circumstantial, once you spend enough time scrutinizing it, you find other patterns that give them away as well: Apart from their claims being totally unsourced and dubious when researched, their claims evolve as well, starting for example with this one, evolving into this. I'm sorry if I come off as not assuming good faith, but I have spent entirely too much time trying to verify so many cases of this user's hoax info, as well as dealing with their vandalism. This user has been through so many IPs, I don't believe they've missed all the warnings and blocks they've received on their IP's and accounts. Eik Corell (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected; that Nacho Libre example in particular is very convincing. Thank you for putting in the time to look into this. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Except the Nacho Libre one is quite convincingly not the same editor. It's an editor in Ireland that Eik Corell is chasing around (that seems reasonable to chase.) The editor that is the subject of this thread is clearly someone from Connecticut, so not the same editor, and their pattern is different. There's surely more than 1 editor in the world who's ever put information about potentially cancelled versions of games. I just fear here there is a good faith editor being mentally merged with a disruptive editor and no one has ever even attempted the slightest bit of communication so they repeat their edits wondering why they aren't staying. Canterbury Tail talk 13:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We have established that this user from Connecticut is most likely not the same user from Ireland. Unless they are a frequent flyer I doubt they are moving around that much. Is it possible? Yeah, but not likely. We have to think like the average person would that has little to no knowledge of Wikipedia. That is assuming good faith. Why are they adding and repeating their edits? If I had little knowledge of Wikipedia except I was told it was free to edit and I saw something that stood out to me and made the change but I went back and it didn't show I would probably think my edit didn't save and I would try to add it again. That's why we should attempt to communicate. --ARoseWolf 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But have we really? For especially pernicious vandals, this seems to be quite normal, meaning that they have some amazing ability to completely switch not just IPs, but IP ranges, switch between IPv4 and IPv6, and accounts with ease, all of which will mostly be clean; Not proxies, not VPNs, or otherwise "marked" in databases for abuse, just bog-standard residential IPs like the ones appearing here. In the userspace report I linked, this is the case as well -- several IPs are already listed there as not geolocating to Ireland, and their behavior still matches. It feels like any attempt to isolate, differentiate, or otherwise separate and address the sources of hyper-specific vandalism like is a red-herring; Whether it's an organized campaign, a person utilizing a botnet, or another vandal adopting the vandalism of another, is ultimately futile -- Whether it's the same duck or not, the quacking is exactly the same. Eik Corell (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And that's why I feel we should treat the edits on the merits of the edits and not presume they all belong to the same people. Did we gain anything by reverting valid cover art captions? Would it have hurt anything to have left them? Even if they are the same person, those edits are not problematic and we shouldn't just be blindly reverting every edit by an editor, only the problematic ones. Canterbury Tail talk 00:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The answer to "Did we gain anything" is yes—applying WP:DENY to long-term abusers is extremely important. The remarks above by Eik Corell regarding how LTAs are able to find dozens of new squeaky-clean IPs is correct. Thanks to Eik Corell for resisting the corruption of the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorting through the edits of a long-term abuser to try and separate 'good' edits from 'bad' edits as a matter of course is a very bad idea. Doing so sucks time and energy from a good faith contributor, time and energy that could no doubt be better directed elsewhere. It multiplies the disruption that is already being caused. WP:RBI allows everyone to quickly and easily move on with their lives, which is a great gain for Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't have definitive proof these two are the same though, right? We are working off a hunch and an assumption. We are saying, on the surface, the specific edits of this one editor are not necessarily vandalism by themselves though unsourced which means the revert is not bad either but, if we tie them to the edits of this these IP's and other editors, of which we think this editor is tied to, then the vandalism is on full display. But what vandalism has this specific editor done under this named account that is clear and defined vandalism without added conjecture? That is all we should be looking at unless we can link them to a previous editor or IP that made the same exact edits or unless we have some kind of CU or off-wiki connection. I'm not seeing that in the links provided. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

They were blocked for disruptive editing which is consistent. These edits are disruptive in that they are being added without any sources as per required by policy. How can anyone evaluate the edits without sources to verify them by? My point of contention is calling this editor a vandal and linking them to these other IP's with only very vague circumstantial evidence and a hunch to back it up. Disruptive? Okay, I can see that. Part of a consistent ring of vandalism by a sock master with a bunch of puppets? Not without proof. The fact that LTA's can find clean IP's and can create new accounts doesn't mean we should, at the very beginning and without proof, assume every new editor that pops up and makes error filled edits is a sock puppet. --ARoseWolf 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot "prove" IP connections, as (putting aside VPNs etc.) doing so is against the WMF Privacy Policy. That is why we rely on behaviour, and examples of this have been provided. CMD (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The behavior provided by these examples doesn't show anything this specific editor did that would be classified as vandalism though. The nature of the edits as disruptive is not in doubt. With very few exceptions any unsourced additions could be considered disruptive. That doesn't make the editor a vandal. WP:Vandalism clearly requests that we refrain from labeling edits as vandalism or calling other editors vandals without clear evidence that the intention of said editors is to harm Wikipedia and doing so without this proof is, in itself, potentially harmful. Without the proof, not based on the behavior of other IP's we assume they are linked to, that this specific editor is, in fact, intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia the use of the words "vandalism" and "vandal" goes against that policy. All I am trying to do is bring awareness to how we can so quickly label someone with a term, such as vandal, and just offer a different perspective but one in agreement with policy. It's really not deserving of that much attention but to give us pause to think about it. I agree with the block on those grounds of disruptive editing just not the labeling as a vandal, that's all. --ARoseWolf 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Revoke Talk page Permision of Troigjuodjgosdrpmjfsaolkjmepokpewr:

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

---

This user is actively using their talk page to do a small amount of trollin', which is against the guidelines, so revoke permission to edit talk page MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Next time, please provide a link to the user. It makes things easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506's talk page

2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP user has created a list of 'enemies' and 'friends' on their talk page labelled Possible sock puppets and bad actors and Good people just trying to help [28]. And posted on an article talk page in reply to another user: Thank you for clearly stating your bias on this issue. You may join the others that need to recuse themselves from editing here [29]. And on RFPP: Someone take away [User]'s editing rights, he's lost it [30]

This appears related to ongoing disputes on Talk:DRASTIC re: how we should describe the group ("internet activists" vs "scientists and amateur researchers") and how favorably we should describe their findings/actions re: NPOV. Another anonymous user was recently warned by @Graham Beards: then blocked by @Bishonen: and @Samwalton9: for WP:NPA on my and another user's talk pages: [31] [32] This new IP appears to be very similar to the old range. They both attempt to invalidate or silence editors who disagree with them as "biased" and "having COI" and "needing to recuse themselves from editing articles related to covid origins."

DRASTIC is a loose group of twitter/internet sleuths who have been implicated in past harassment of scientists online. It is not at all surprising to me that this has become a flashpoint where multiple different anonymous editors are harassing/attempting to POV push on covid-related articles. It feels quite a bit like a meat puppet circus. I believe admin action is warranted. Thanks for reading... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, the IP user seems to be here with a personal grudge, and in addition to the talk page harassment there's silliness like this... An enforced, prolonged vacation would do good. And the TP should obviously be G10ed, as tagged. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I see Liz has fixed that issue. Any comment on the IP's behaviour at RFPP/decrease? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Liz just blocked the indicated anon for 31 hours for block evasion. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we get a TPA block too? They've devolved into 'spank me daddy' and 'did I stutter?' responses. They're also making clear that they'll continue the harassment from the second the block expires.Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I was hesitant to propose this, given it's partly my fault for wasting my time trying to explain a few things; but yes, there's no indication they've understood the issue here, and no indication that they'll attempt editing constructively once the current blocks expires. The declined unblock request itself says, and I quote, " I'll kindly wait till my IP changes again or the 31 hours expires. Then I will continue to fight the bias being WP:PUSHed by RandomCanadian and Shibbolethink." Clear evidence that they do not intend to abide by the block; and also of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. TPA could also be revoked on the sole grounds of misuse of talk page during block, but hey that's like the least of concerns at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • "I'll kindly wait till my IP changes again"...? Well, exactly. Dear admins, please do block the /64 range when you want to block an IPv6; don't just block the single IP. Please. I know it may happen that the person has access to an even wider range, but blocking the /64 is in any case a first step. Leaving out a few useless subtleties, a /64 is always a single individual. I've done it now, as well as lengthened the block a little, in consideration of the individual's conduct while blocked: 2600:8804:6600:C4:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
        • It'd be nice if that instruction (to block the /64) could be added to the block interface. Basically you should always block the /64, unless you have a good reason not to. There are a very few networks which don't follow the standard IPv6 allocation, and unless you know what to look for, just block the /64. If you're not sure how: remove the last four segments of the IP, and suffix the remaining address with "::/64", i.e. 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 becomes 2600:8804:6600:C4::/64. Or of course you can ask someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks for assistance. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
          • • You don't need to remove the the last four segments, you can just append the /64 to the full address (like I just did for the IP below).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Please don't block my 80 year old neighbor! 2600:8804:6600:C4:54D7:A17D:6585:8FCC (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and vandalism by User:Daimler92

This user has been engaged in POV-pushing behaviour across a number of articles, particularly on the Kalergi Plan, where they have engaged in persistent edit-warring and abusive behaviour to other editors despite warnings over the allegation that a passage of Coudenhove-Kalergi's work was misconstrued (i.e., first instance, not edit war, but they keep on going ...). In addition to this, the editor has also been vandalising the page, undoing said vandalism but still trying to push their edits at the same time. (They claim this was an accident done while on mobile, yet the disruptive edit literally has "Vandalizing" as the edit summary... Makes someone's job easier, I guess?).

I also believe they have engaged in IP editing to try and force their wording into the article; this edit from 88.109.112.42 also has the same issue with the term "misconstrued" as the IP, and has only made edits on the Kalergi Plan article one day after Daimler's edits were reverted. Daimler also reverted a revert of the IP editor soon afterwards.

For what it's worth, this claim was uncited and I think should have been removed or clarified; the main text notes white nationalists quoting Coudenhove-Kalergi's writings out of context but does not specifically tie it to the quote contested by this editor. But this is stuff to be brought up on the talk page – this editor has behaved in an abusive and manipulative manner and is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, as their edits on all articles seem to follow a pattern of far-right, anti-Semitic POV-pushing.

Pinging @ජපස:, @Hob Gadling:, @XOR'easter:, @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Binksternet:, who have been involved in disputes with the editor. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: You failed to notify the user as required.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Apologies, I have never filed an ANI report before. I hope I've notified them adequately now. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have jousted with Daimler92 but they are not vandalizing Wikipedia. (The "vandalizing" edit summary could be short for "reversion of vandalizing", or it could be a slip of the finger on a dropdown menu showing boilerplate choices of pre-loaded edit summaries.) Daimler92's addition to SPLC was a good one, and the dispute at Kalergi Plan is minor—no secondary source is supporting the analysis. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the editor was edit-warring on the article, even after repeated warnings. This should have been taken to talk. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And the language about misconstrual that they removed from the lede was supported by the sources in the main text. XOR'easter (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You and the OP are focusing on the removal of "misconstrued" but the edit can also be interpreted as about removing the (indeed false) claim that the idea of a Kalergi Plan is derived from that one section in the book, rather than the book as a whole. It's possible to simply say it is based on the book and formulate separately the reason(s) it is wrong. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are things that should be handled on the article Talk page, not here. The problem that should be handled here is that the user did not handle those things by discussing them on the article Talk page but by edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The OP offered a diagnosis of "far right antisemitic POV pushing" in part based on their interpretation of this edit, so it's also relevant here. Another point in Daimler92's favor is that the sources only assert that Kalergi's book is being misconstrued without offering an explanation of the supposed error (and they avoid talking about the "Jewish master race" comments, though I think those are ultimately innocuous). Basically there are no good sources that adequately explain or refute the theory and that is fuel for edit wars. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Daimler92 was edit-warring, regardless of how valid the contributions are (I will not venture to make an opinion on that). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Daimler92's first edit (I did not check if the later ones are the same) is correct, but reliably sourcing it is likely impossible. The Kalergi Plan theory does not stem from only the one quoted passage in the book. There are, for example, other passages in which he calls Jews a "master race" and speculates on their leadership role in the future. However, the only sources for this are either non RS sites that push the theory, or WP:OR and SYNTH from PRIMARY sources (Kalergi's book). Likewise, there are RS calling the "Kalergi Plan" a conspiracy theory but none that explain details of why it's wrong. So the more basic problem is that there is not enough material for a separate article rather than a section of Kalergi's bio article. In the current arrangement where it is a separate article, it is possible Daimler92 is pushing for edits he is convinced are correct as a matter of fact (they are). Which conflicts with various Wikipedia rules, whether or not he is aware of that. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a version of the book archived here by the internet archive. I would suggest finding page numbers for the quote(s) here. Sadly I am not able to speak German. Thankfully ca:Projecte Kalergi has the page numbers, so someone could go find and verify the quote. I think the Catalan article has a better coverage of his philosophy as a whole, as just a cursory look through archive.org shows he published many books that are available on the internet, rather than a passage from just one book. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've located the original of the quotation, and have added it and a more precise citation to Kalergi Plan. (The Catalan article cites three pages; it's from one of those, off by one.) The English translation of that passage is good. I have no intention of reading the whole book to see if it's representative. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

...bar one poorly-translated word. It had been nagging at me, and I've footnoted it. Narky Blert (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

They are edit warring and POV pushing, but I am not sure it is vandalism per see.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

However this [[33]] is an indication they can't cooperate. Their battleground mentality is causing friction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Silent

To prevent recognition, I decided not to open an SPI. It seems like this account was a sleeper and now an active sockpuppet of Nic.cartagena12. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

New user first edit is personal attack on my talk page

User:Blindatlove88 is a "new" user, who's very first and as of now, only edit is to leave a personal attack on my talk page, see [34]. As that is a very unusual first edit for a user, even a vandal, I suspect that it's a sockpuppet of a different user. However, while I do have some guesses on who it might be, there's no evidence to link them to any specific user, and I don't want to throw any unfounded accusations against someone. And while I feel that it's unlikely, it's certainly is possible for them to not actually be a sockpuppet. So I don't know how to proceed from here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: would a check user be appropriate here? I find it very unlikely that they're not a sockpuppet because how else would they even come across my talk page otherwise? However, if against usual procedure to do a CU in a situation like this, I understand. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want you can file something at WP:SPI, there are instructions on how to start an investigation without a known master. It's a bit of rigmarole, but might turn up sleeper accounts or similar. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Can you point me to the instructions on how to file an investigation with an unknown master? I definitely want to do that, but I didn't see any instructions on WP:SPI on how to do it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any instructions either, but looking at the history it seems that the correct way to do it is list the sockpuppet in the "master" slot, then not use the "sock" slots and mention the reason in the body (unknown master). BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GAROSENTAIJINOHGERRV7's good faith edits

I first encountered this user at Miss Earth 2021 with this edit[35] that he provides without sources to cite his edits. I tried to adress this in his talk page, however it seemed to be usless as he kept on doing the same unsourced content as seen here [36] and even did the same at Miss Universe 2021 with this recent edit here [37].

This person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and rather spread misinformation, and with that I think this editor should be blocked from editing. Milesq (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat on my user talk page

User:Hillary1900 is a near single purpose account making promotional edits about Oopali Operajita which I noticed this morning in this diff. I put a uw-paid1 template on their user talk page, and in response I got this legal threat on my own user talk page. Note that Hillary1900 has previously indicated that they are an attorney. I think I could use some assistance here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

legendary President, Hillary1900? While being an attorney is not against policy, making veiled legal threats is. A quick block should be applied here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On legendary president, I tried. At Talk:Oopali Operajita#Richard Cyert. Jay ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion. Around half of Hillary1900's 200+ edits are on Oopali Operajita. 84 of the 94 edits since August are on the article, and I would believe it is partly because I chanced upon the article and started implementing general cleanup, NPOV and Verifiability since August. While I admit Hillary1900 has been a difficult user, I have been reasoning at the article talk and user talk pages, and it did appear that the user has picked up on the verifiability aspect in the last few days. I haven't looked at the last 2 days though. Considering the increasing number of daily edits, I was considering looking at WP:SPA in a few days.

I understand the user has a legal viewpoint of looking at Wikipedia and the above referenced attorney link was an accusation about me, I didn't respond, as I wasn't asked about my opinion. The user has been civil to me and hasn't attacked me directly (It helped that the user absolutely stopped responding to my posts or any posts on the subject after a while!) But the user has tried to reach out to trustees, and not to senior editors or admins (even though I tried to help the user reach them). If the user had spread out to more articles and started communicating with more users, over a period of time, I believe the user would have had a broader outlook about Wikipedia, how others work, and how to work with others. Jay ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

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

---

Hello, I am a new editor and I read that this was the best place to bring stuff like this up: I added sourced material to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials over the series of a few edits and it was deleted by User:Washuotaku. I reverted him, User:Bkatcher reverted me & User:The Anome left a demeaning comment on my talk page. I used sources, I made calm and professional statements. I regret that I said 'fight me' in the edit summary but that's come and gone now. My problem is how people who would object to something like this can stay on Wikipedia for 10 years and not get wisened up, either by admins or their reading here. Something ought to be done. I don't want to get in an edit war but I think Washu Otoaku has got a few of his friends otherwise he would have made 3 reverts by now. Can somebody do something about this or get it figured out? I really don't know how to go on with this, we would just revert each other back and forth. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: This is a content dispute, not a vandalism issue. Please sort this out with other editors by discussing it on the article's talk page, Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, to achieve consensus on the article content. -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: AS I Stated in my edit summary which I assume you did not read,

Everyone on this site likes to whine about 'neutral point of view'. PEOPLE ARE DYING. Don't you understand? LIVES ARE AT RISK. Wikipedia cannot remain neutral. We have to take a stand for basic human decency. I have provided references from news sites, scientific studies etc. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: I read it. However, no matter how well-founded your concerns, you are still stuck with having to abide by Wikipedia editorial policies. -- The Anome (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure where to start telling you what is wrong with this, the implication you will edit war if you do not get your way, the implication of meat puppetry, the POV pushing nature of this. As to people are dying, what? This reads like wp:nothere, and wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC

I'm not going to edit war. I want to maintain peace and friendly discussion which is why I brought the dispute here instead of continuing to revert. And I would also like to add that Bkatcher and his friend Washuotaku have together violated WP:3RR now. Not sure what you mean by 'meatpuppetry'. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The accusation that users are combining to edit war in unison. And no they have not as 3RR applies to one user reverting. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for text at Wikipedia, and having a source is not a magic force field that protects text from being removed. Text also needs to meet other policies, such as using neutral point of view, being written in an appropriate tone, being relevant to the overall narrative, and several others. I have not extensively reviewed the dispute as yet, but vanishingly close to 100% of the time when someone complains that their recent sourced edits are removed, there are usually other factors justifying the removal that they are refusing to acknowledge or address. Please make sure that your additions are valid beyond merely the existence of sources. --Jayron32 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think they're valid. I'm not going on a tirade here nor was I in the article, I wrote full sentences with sources such as the Washington Post, and a study from a university on the effects of Confederate monuments on students' mental health at a school, specifically students of color. Now some other editors feel my edits are not in compliance with WP:NPOV which I feel is not really relevant in an issue of this magnitude. That's the dispute. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

−

Great wrongs have already been righted. Now Wikipedia and specifically this page (And I was only really making these kinds of edit on this one page and got into this great big hangup) needs to come into the 21st century and state the obvious instead of pandering to white supremacists and neo-nazis. No issue with you as I am sure you don't believe such things, it's a disagreement in how we should go about it. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see how to resolve this. This page is not the right venue. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The OP has now been blocked as a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Impersonation of a living person by new sockpuppet of User:Raxythecat

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

---

A persistent sockpuppet master, Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is now impersonating the subject of an article they regularly vandalize, Lionel Snell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The impersonating user is Lionelsnell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). You can find the current SPI case and history here. Skyerise (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User Wlbw68

User User:Wlbw68 consistently continues to impose on me a discussion of the situation with his conflicts with other participants in Russian Wikipedia, because of which he got a block there. I have nothing to do with their conflict and do not want to discuss it, and I consider it a flood and persecution. Please stop user Wlbw68 who returns a discussion in Russian on my talk page. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eleazar: You failed to notify the user, which is required. In addition, other than your link showing that the user was blocked at ru.wiki, you have provided no evidence to support your allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

[38], [39], [40], [41] - Here are the diffs where he continues this, although I told him every time to stop. Of course in Russian. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But you still didn't notify them of this thread. I've done this for you this time: [42]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(more) yes, they do seem to be pestering you about things going on at ru.wiki, even when you asked them to stop. I'll leave them a note to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought the mention was enough. I do not know very well with the rules of the English WP, in Russian there is enough mention, sorry. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and thanks again very much, I appreciate it! --- Eleazar (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning left: [43]. Let me know if it continues after the warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! --- Eleazar (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User making non constructive edits and making reverts

Editor BubbaJoe123456 has enforced the users opinion on how the lead section of the Eritrea country article should be written. The issue is related to user making these edits here: [44],[45],[46] referring to a status quo which does not exist. Prior to that location was set to Eastern Africa per template guidline. After lengthy discussion on how the lead should be written, several users involved, consensus was reached to set the location of the country to both Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa. I provided the Wikipedia country article guidelines WP:WPC, WP: WPCTEMPLATE as a good example of how the lead (location included) could be written, besides also providing examples of how similar locations (regions & subregions) are presented here on Wikipedia in the talk page [47]. In the discussion, I proceeded with asking if anyone objected to any of those examples. No one openly objected and the edit is not controversial in itself since it follows Wikipedia guidelines and several other similar good examples. This got reverted by BubbaJoe123456 [48] and later by user Rastakwere with no rational explanation [49]. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be resolved at Talk:Eritrea. Looking at the article's revision history, it appears that you've been trying to make the wording a certain way for awhile, and have been reverted by multiple editors (not just BubbaJoe123456 and Rastakwere) so this looks like a slow-moving edit war. Maybe open an RFC on the wording since the lengthy discussion doesn't seem to be reaching a clear consensus on its own. Not an ANI matter, IMO. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Leechjoel9 has a history of very focused editing (I'm choosing my words carefully) in topics related to Eritrea, as discussions at Talk:Eritrea and Talk:Demographics of Eritrea will clearly demonstrate; two RfCs have been required to deal with what shouldn't have been particularly controversial topics. In this case, he changed the lede of the Eritrea article last year (after it had been stable for 10 years) to place Eritrea in Eastern Africa, rather than the Horn of Africa. Given this editor's history, I can only assume there's some underlying political context in which Eritrea doesn't want to be classified as part of the Horn of Africa. Recently, several editors attempted to move the geographic location back to Horn of Africa, but were reverted by Leechjoel9. I started a talk page discussion on the topic (Talk:Eritrea#Horn of Africa), where there clearly wasn't support for Leechjoel9's original attempt to eliminate a reference to Horn of Africa. Alessandro57 proposed a compromise solution, including both Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, and that seemed to be acceptable to the other participants in the discussion, including (Chipmunkdavis and Rastakwere, so I implemented it. Leechjoel9 continued to push for his own version, and eventually attempted to implement it. I reverted, as I don't believe his edit reflects the consensus he believes it does. Leechjoel9 reverted me, and was himself reverted. He then started this thread. A boomerang TBAN is in order, I believe. Pinging Boud and Johnuniq as well, given history. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• I should also point out that Leechjoel9 was previously warned (before they blanked their talk page) that their behavior in relation to the Eritrea lede constituted edit warring. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article itself was tagged saying it needed an update since it had ten year old content on it, over a year ago. Updating the location was a part of that, and it was updated following the guidelines per above. Nothing more, nothing less. The proposed example was to add both Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa. Regarding the other issues related to the topic of Eritrea or Horn of Africa, it has been you and Boud that tried to half the size of the population of the Eritrea with 3 Million inhabitants with one single source as a reference, this is controversial to say the least. Especially when there exist at least several sources by CIA, African Development Bank, COMSEA and Eritrean government saying otherwise, sources that are independent of each other. This is against WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW undue weight giving support to a minority view. Other users also objected to your proposals saying it was politically motivated on your behalf, at the same time you along Boud was heavily involved editing another article under DS Tigray War in relation Eritrea, especially the latter of you two. This lead to lengthy discussion in the talk page of Eritrea and the Demographics of Eritrea (possibly archived now), where Boud and you tried to get a topic ban against users who simply disagreed with you by warning other users about the discretionary sanction or randomly starting ANI and other type of incidents because of this. Luckily these issues was resorted to discussions in the end although lengthy ones, many times not benefiting involved parties or admins. Please stick to the topic, nobody is blanking anything, archiving is a common procedure and exist for a reason and they are searchable. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Without rehashing the entire Eritrea population RfC, I'll just point out that your description of the available sources doesn't match the situation. As for your talk page, archiving is certainly common. Archiving the entire page, for the first time, right after you filed this report, and including in the archiving content (such as your edit warring warning regarding the Eritrea lede) that's less than a week old, is...somewhat less common. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You assert that "Other users also objected to your proposals saying it was politically motivated on your behalf". The only other users to attack the proposals to incorporate a range of estimates for Eritrea's population in the Demographics of Eritrea article were Clownshking, who has since been topic banned from the Horn of Africa and then blocked, and Facttell, who was blocked as a Clownshking sock. Finally, I will note that your assertion that I was "heavily involved" in editing the Tigray War article is flatly untrue. I have never edited that article.[50]BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• BubbaJoe123456's phrase two RfCs have been required to deal with what shouldn't have been particularly controversial topics is an accurate (though understated) summary. A huge amount of time was needed to converge on editing issues that should have taken only a few days once it was clear what demographical research (sources, methods, open-access results, organisational authorship) was known to us. Leechjoel9 has repeatedly made inaccurate, misleading and/or sometimes outright false Eritrea-editing-related statements, including many of those above, which makes rational discussion difficult and convergence on editorial decisions extremely time-consuming and frustrating. WP:IDONTHEAR and WP:NOTHERE seem relevant. My impression is that there are enough active editors at Eritrea and Talk:Eritrea such that a block on Leechjoel9 is not needed, although the article editing history does suggest that the other editors are losing patience. Boud (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD interference and allegations.

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs)
• Multi7001 (talk · contribs)
• Spinningspark (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multi7001 did significance interference with the discussion etiquette at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges which Spinningspark handled excellently avoiding an otherwise probable DRV by myself (to avoid precedent setting of the process) by null and voiding it with no objection to an immediate renominate. The 2nd nomination had procedural errors, corrected 2.5 hours after nomination but with content above by !vote changed and allegations raissed. The reversion reasons on the edit summaries on Multi7001's talk page are eyebrow raising. The edit summaary allegation (that closer Spinningspark) waspossible accomplice of spam user (Djm-leighpark) [51]. While there is a risk I have SEALIONed Multi7001 there is considerable lack of COMPETENCY in following procedures for someone who has put themselves forward for NPP and took advice to launch in AfD.Old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer & Old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer I expect to see voiding of Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) but have no objection to a properly raised 3rd nomination. Multi7001 seems to have difficulty in accepting advice and may need warning to future conduct. If people feel I am a sock of Spinningspark feel fee to raise at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djm-leighpark; which the allegations made in the above AfD's may have have encouraged someone to raise. At the end of raising this I observe Ponyo has just warned Multi7001 on their talk page which hopefully is sufficient. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• The nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) includes a number of personal attacks that at least one admin has suggested Multi7001 strike (which he has not done). The AFD itself was not transcluded properly and I fixed it during a wander through the logs (admin Metropolitan90 fixed it further). To be honest, I didn't really read the statement, as I was just cleaning the formatting. But there is no way a statement like that will result in a collegial discussion about the notability of the subject or the nature of the article itself. As loathe as I might be to suggest the procedural closure of a second AFD in mere days, I think that's what needs to happen. And Multi7001 should probably be discouraged (or prevented) from nominating it (or anything else) until they can do so properly and without the personal attacks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• After a couple of days without resolution, I'm going to tag those admins and editors who - at DRV - agreed (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) that problematic AFDs were best brought here to ANI for resolution, rather to DRV. Spinningspark, Jclemens, and Alalch Emis. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with everything. The ongoing AfD will not lead to anything worthy, and it has caused and will keep causing people to waste their time. So it's disruptive. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall recommending bringing this AFD to ANI. In a totally different DRV case I did suggest that problematic AFDs should not be taken to DRV while they were still ongoing and that ANI could be used to seek help if the AFD needed closing urgently. But that is not the action of first resort I suggeted. The first thing to do is to call for speedy close or procedural close from within the AFD. SpinningSpark 12:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ThiagoWinters

User ThiagoWinters (talk · contribs), removing content that is backed by reliable sources (right here). In his talk page, he was informed about what was wrong with his edits and he also instructed to use the article talk page. Not only he ignored the warnings, he deleted them and proceed to engage in the same behaviour. Coltsfan (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: I really don't know why experienced users are failing to notify other users of reports here. That said, this appears to be a content dispute, not a conduct issue and should be resolved elsewhere, preferably on the article Talk page, which I don't see anyone using.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, here is the thing, contact was made. Like i said, he was instructed (see here) to use the talk page to discuss the content with other users. He deleted it (here), then blanked out his entire talk page (here). So, i assumed he removed the warning, but at least acknowledged it. But no, he refused to engage in any contact with me or the others who reverted him and also ignores the instructions to use the talk page. But here is the thing, he is the one removing content (backed by RS, btw), so he is the one who has to justify it. He didn't and refused to do so even when asked too. But if that is normal behaviour/acceptable, then my mistake, let him be. Coltsfan (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of IPs removing sourced content from Olavo de Carvalho, repeatedly adding complaints about the article in Portuguese,[52] etc. I have semiprotected it. I'm also concerned about ThiagoWinters's editing of the article. They have removed "polemicist" from the lead on the argument that Carvalho has never in his own books referred to himself as a polemicist (yes, really, that is the reason given in the edit summary), and also removed "far-right conspiracy theorist" along with its sources The Atlantic and Polygraph.info, dismissing them in the edit summary with "Olavo himself criticized the far-right, and opinionated journalism cannot be taken as a fact to define an individual". I have warned ThiagoWinters on their page, with policy links showing that reliable secondary sources trump a subject's own statements of their positions, and have also given him an alert about the discretionary sanctions for biographical articles. Bishonen | tålk 06:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC).

Directing users to Sci-Hub?

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

---

In a recent posting to NPOVN, MarshallKe mentioned that a particular paywalled journal article might be found on Sci-Hub.[53] I made an edit[54] to remove this quietly, and reqested on their Talk page not to do this, but MarshallKe has doubled-down, creating another NPOVN posting saying the article can be obtained there.[55] and that I "don't understand copyright law".[56] Not using a URL gets around sci-hub's global blacklisting and by directing users there seems problematic per WP:lINKVIO. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Block him. I don't think it's a matter of "I don't understand" and the gaming is something that should be addressed with a swift block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we detecting (EditFilter?) whether people are adding disabled sci-hub urls anywhere? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Block as a preventative measure until they agree not to do it again. Its one thing to not understand the rules, its another to say you dont agree with them and are going to flout it. Directing people to a site we have specifically implemented technical measures to stop people doing just that? No excuses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah since Alexbrn would definately count as involved given the discussion at the article, another admin would have to take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Another? While I agree that Alex would certainly be a great mophandler ... -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I assumed they already were mopping :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The user did not edit after this thread has been opened, and I would like to hear from them, but if they continue editing Wikipedia without replying here I am prepared to block indef with the unblock condition that they show understanding of copyright policies (which others as they claim do not have).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I hadn't been aware of this particular policy, and will obey it. MarshallKe (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

NewsPenal18/sandbox

Could someone please userfy this editor's latest. Dawnseeker2000 08:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at Indian Telecommunication Service

Please see diff, by IP 106.197.0.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given the proclivity of the Indian authorities to attempt to intervene in websites like Wikipedia it's not an entirely empty threat. ninety:one 09:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ninetyone, I went to find a source, and surprisingly the Indian government actually uploaded their archived paper Gazette online. The IP editor was right, despite the callous edit message. – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Clemper behaviour on Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

The page at Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is an obviously controversial article. It was originally split off from Immunity passport, but met with some issues. Cleanup has ensued. I believe Clemper is engaged in POV pushing on the article, to focus on criticism of Vaccine Passports in general, and within the lede, where there should be a succinct summary of said criticism, and more information in the body of the article. They have mentioned I am owning the article, which I have no intention or desire to do, which is why I tagged recent editors of the article in talk to generate discussion, but was careful not to WP:CANVASS. My attempts to communicate with Clemper were deleted from their talk page here: [57], [58], [59] and here [60]. I would like to take a step back and let other editors have a voice in the article because right now it just seems one sided. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This does not look good.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of sources being added currently are flimsy at best and I worry about the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The ownership claim was based on a week-long pattern of reverting other editors' material while inserting his own in several dozen edits. There's no POV here; it's simply providing a balanced treatment. The topic is very controversial and the controversy should be explained (it was explained in two sentences, which Caffein was trying to remove). Caffein wants multiple paragraphs explaining the rationale for vaccine passports, yet wants to reduce the notable rationale against them (including by the Biden administration and 20 US states) to a short sentence simply stating that 'critics have raised scientific and legal issues,' which is way too vague/broad. The entire conflict at hand is about a single paragraph (two sentences really) in the lede, the last paragraph. The talk discussion is less than one day old, yet Caffein is resorting to admin intervention already. If you think one or more of the 6-7 sources are flimsy, address them individually in talk. The reason I removed the talk page vandalism was because Caffein began to pepper my page with them every 2-3 minutes, calling my first edits (which simply restored content that he/she removed) 'disruptive' because he/she didn't like them.Clemper (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, whether you like its findings or not, the study is widely cited by critics of vaccine passports; a widely circulated conversation on the study by Sanjay Gupta and Fauci, which has been covered by many large outlets, helped the issue break through. I'll assume that you're right that the study is not peer-reviewed it can't be mentioned.Clemper (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Not really, If you add material to an article and it gets reverted, you should not start edit-warring but start discussion at the talk page (what you did) and wait until it gets concluded. We have an essay about this, WP:BRD. It is up to you to prove that your sources are appropriate, if this is being questioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If you have not read WP:MEDRS, you should do it before you continue editing in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize the situation; the sentence on the Israeli study was added by me today. You removed it, I let your edit stand. That's not warring. And no, the content in question was already in the article and sourced in the body, and summarized in the lede without repeating the citations. Caffein was trying to remove it without consensus, hence the talk discussion started yesterday.Clemper (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you understand what my role is. I am an independent administrator who is looking at the situation. I removed material as inappropriate, if you reverted me I would likely applied a block. So far I decided not to block you, but given you have less than 100 edits here and already created a lot of trouble in a troublesome area, it is likely that you will be blocked soon if you do not change your attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When I interact with an editor I don't assume them to be an admin and don't check unless they make themselves known. That you call edits 'trouble' (esp when it concerned restoring existing content that was amply sourced later in the body) is strange to me; what about Caffein's non-consensus removals? The program is controversial and the article should reflect that truth, that's all this is about. Have over 100 edits.Clemper (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When you add material and get reverted, in most cases this is not a "non-consensus removal", see WP:BRD. I understand that you have a strong opinion about the program, but I am sorry to say nobody cares about our opinions, we follow reliable sources and a lot of other policies, and so far you have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of these policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you removed one edit that was problematic, and I didn't contest it or undo it. I think it's likely the study will become peer reviewed and no one has yet disputed its methodologies in spite of the large amount of press exposure it has received; but apparently it isn't peer-reviewed yet. That was the only misunderstanding of policies. You miss the fact that the material Caffein was reverting was already there before he began his recent editing streak. He removed it, I didn't add the material after the fact as you suggest. And I agree that my opinion doesn't matter; there are massive protests against it, and the Biden administration and 20 US states, among other polities/politicians, have publicly taken a stand against it including by banning it. That's notable and should be included. Caffein's argument about sources was invalid from the beginning, since the sources were already in the body of the article and the existing content in the lede was summarizing that content. I'll avoid less-reliable medical sources in the future and will use talk page to mediate conflicts, but need Caffein et al to abide by the same. Clemper (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Just for a bit of terminological things, we tend to use notability to refer to topics broadly, and due and undue weight to describe whether or not particular material ought to be included in the article. In general, we establish what's due and undue based upon how much weight they are given in reliable sources. This information might be due if you can provide reliable sources (such as mainstream regional, national, or international newspapers) that cover these sorts of events, though the popular press is considered to be generally unreliable for biomedical information. For sources that have been commonly discussed, the perennial sources list might be a good thing to consult. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to update this situation - this user has now engaged in nearly 100 edits on this page in the last 24 hours and is disrupting any editorial flow from myself and other editors. [61] CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I came across this dispute last night, but only got time now to review the page's history. It does admittedly appear like Clemper has an ownership issue regarding this article, despite how they characterized the situation here and on the article's talk page. I'm seeing clashing with almost every edit made by others - and quite the hostile approach with this initial edit. BOTTO _(T•C) 04:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've just fixed their errors, as well - they wrote that England and Wales have cancelled vaccine plans (sourced to a reference that only mentioned England) desite the fact that edit was inserted after Wales voted for a vaccine passport plan. There's a lot of dubious POV going on there - I'd suggest a partial block from the article only, so that they can still participate on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The sheer number of edits is large, though the editor is also rather new and I'd like to ask them two questions. @Clemper:

1. Do you intend to follow the principles of the bold, revert, and discuss cycle in good faith when making future edits, in order to reach consensus with other editors?
2. Do you promise to read WP:MEDRS and insert biomedical content only that is sourced to medically reliable sources?

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10: Yes, I promise on both counts. What you're missing here though is that Caffein changed the existing version (minimized it to an extreme extent IMO) without any talk consensus, and my edits were putting the original version back. My recent streak is just preserving the prior version that he and he alone continues reverting in favor of his own version which he put in over several dozen edits (the other edits made since haven't been contested). Caffein is the violator of BRD, not me. I am responding to his violations of BRD. He made mischaracterizations in this ANI and made it look like the opposite (while warning me repeatedly not to 'disruptively' undo his non-consensus edits). As for the number of edits, it's 90% a result of my editing style (a habit I should break), 10% from significant edits. Sometimes I'll edit multiple times in a minute rather than pre-write the entire edit. I should use the sandbox feature more.

Black Kite: The BBC sources suggested that only Scotland and not England and Wales had gone ahead with implementation of the program. If you have a source that says Wales is continuing on with it, that's fine.

Botto: the degree of hostility came from the fact that Caffein took it upon himself to remove all the details around criticism as 'misinformation,' as if he is the arbiter of truth and there can't be two opinions on the same issue. Whether or not one thinks it's misinformation, there are educated and reputable critics of vaccine passports, and major world powers have taken a stand against them by canceling or preemptively banning the program. That's notable here. The size of the paragraph and placement in the lede are appropriate. Caffein's new version which I have been reverting prior to him gaining consensus essentially read that 'Critics of vaccine passports have raised scientific and legal issues(.)' with no details given, which is ridiculously vague/broad.

To whomever the moderator/admin is: the number of edits on the page are largely due to minor adjustments to the same edits. Virtually all the edits in question in terms of the conflict with Caffein deal with two sentences in one paragraph (the last paragraph of the lede). Caffein continues removing relevant details from the paragraph including the reasons why certain jurisdictions have canceled their programs. There are three issues here: 1) the gain in conciseness is negligible or negative, and the writing is often awkward IMO (e.g. 'however extremely rare') 2) he is removing established content without consensus 3) he is de-contextualizing the events in a paragraph that is supposed to be about criticism and controversy, not just about the raw action of canceling (which in Ireland, for example, was from high vaccination rates). Clemper (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked the user from editing Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic. Persistent addition of the same material to the lede, without achieving consensus at the talk page, and calling this attempts to find a compromise, shows that the user is not capable of constructively editing this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are seeing. A compromise is exactly what it was. The existing version had somewhat stronger language. Caffein went way too far by trying to shave it down to a single sentence, this was only a couple days ago. After the back and forth, we are left with the current version. No consensus was achieved by Caffein. You haven't yet responded on this point - are you aware of this fact, that Caffein's edits were all new? According to your decision, I can just take over any article as Caffein attempted to do, and then say anyone who tries to put it back doesn't have consensus and file ANIs against them. Clemper (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point of time, your edits have been removed by half a dozen users in good standing as inappropriate. May be a sitewide block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Clemper, I wouldn't have implemented this block, but I have a lot of respect for Ymblanter and I think they are well within their rights here. It certainly did feel like you had sort of declared your preferred version as "consensus" and were fairly hostile to changes. I have tried to engage with you in good faith and will continue to do so, but I just think throwing elbows right now is not a helpful strategy. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think given their promise to abide by WP:BRD and to follow the guidance of WP:MEDRS that we should probably not block them at this point (while WP:ROPE is about unblocking, I think a similar logic would apply here since the editor does admit faults in their editing habits that the editor says they desire to break). I am not an admin, so my opinion holds a bit less weight in this regard, but I think that a site-wide block would not be a narrowly tailored preventative measure at this point. I certainly wouldn’t !vote to CBAN the user yet. The editor isn’t a VOA and they aren’t engaging in flagrant personal attacks all over the place. If, however, the editor goes into full personal attack mode or starts ignoring BRD or starts engaging in POV pushing on other pages, then I would see a clear preventative justification for a site-wide block. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree, it the user stops disruption and reflects on their behavior, we are probably done and would not need any further measures.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Emyraldx

User:Emyraldx is a recently created WP:SPA who has only ever edited the Yahaya Bello article, both deleting a well-sourced Controversies section and adding a poorly-sourced, plagiarized Achievement section without reason all while refusing to engage on the talk page. Due to the reasonless edits, unresponsiveness, and potential conflict of interest or undisclosed financial stake, I ask that you determine if Emyraldx could be suspended from editing the Yahaya Bello page and/or the page be protected. Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fully protecting the page for a week, at whatever m:WRONG version I happen to find. That should be enough of a prompt to discuss things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Unrememberedperson & criticism of religion

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

On their user page they indicate that they are here to deal with WP articles relating to criticism of religions as they are full of lies and frauds paid by propagandists to edit. Unsurprisingly, this has not gone well: they have been warned by six different editors ([62]; [63] [64] [65]; [66]; [67]; [68]; [69]). They have generally brushed off these warnings without much thought [70] [71] [72]. At least two editors have gone to some length to try and explain our policies [73] [74] [75]. However, after the last 'final warning' three days ago, they just continue the same behavior (e.g., [76] [77]). They seem not here to build an encyclopedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for disruptive editing. I could have gone with NOT HERE just as easily. Their attitude and perceptions are not conducive to a collaborative, NPOV encyclopedia. Star Mississippi 18:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• This is a  Confirmed sock of Historyou. Feel free to strike or remove their article and talk page edits per WP:BANREVERT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Self promotional editor

Jaimersalazar (talk · contribs) has had an account here since 2005 and more than half of his small number of edits have been to promote himself and his books here. Legion of the Lost was started in 2005 by an IP, and he began editing it a couple months later. An example of his edits to that article [78], [79], and here he self identifies as the author [80]. He is also spamming other (highly disparate) articles by adding his own books to them as "sources" (sometimes including embedded external links) [81], [82], [83], [84]. He has created the article Mutiny of rage, which is about his own book and written using promotional language and then begun spamming that too [85]. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Does Legion of the Lost meet any of the WP:NBOOK criteria? M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I just went through that article, the only reference is this NYT article, and it is just plot summary of the book, not a review. I dont know why, but that NYT article feels fishy. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I typically find that every commercially published book meets WP:NBOOKS, as finding two reviews is usually extremely easy - the publishers typically ensure that there are at least that many as part of their efforts to market the book; in this case, one and two - while I would consider both to be "trivial" books have survived at AfD for less, which probably tells us that WP:NBOOKS needs revising, but that's a a topic for another time.

Incidentally, this one (not significant coverage, but a relevant passing mention) includes a line that would be worth adding: "Jaime Salazar, an American who joined the force, thought he knew the answer when he enlisted in 1999 out of boredom with his engineering job in Texas. He lasted less than a year before deserting, ultimately writing a memoir, "Legion of the Lost," last year." BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm paywall-blocked from the NYT review, but I also found Miller, Roger K. (December 15, 2005). "One Man's Adventures in the French Foreign Legion". The Philadelphia Enquirer. Not a puff piece; might Legion of the Lost scrape through WP:NBOOK? even though the username Jaimersalazar (currently blocked) screams WP:COI. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The only way to know for sure is give AfD a shot. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The NYT review is a legit review, not just a brief mention. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That's NBOOK#1 satisfied, then. Narky Blert (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Legion of the Lost seems to be notable. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Carmaker1 and verifiability

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly deleting a reliable source from Ford Bronco, claiming that as a Ford insider he knows the information to be wrong. ([86], [87], [88]) He apparently either does not understand or does not respect WP:Verifiability and believes that his claims of insider knowledge outweigh Wikipedia policy, as he has done on Wikipedia for years and has been brought to AN/I for in the past. (CNBC is clearly a reliable source and the article quotes a Ford marketing manager directly.) In response to my having reverted his disruptive edit, a lengthy diatribe was posted on the article talk page, making a number of insults and other nasty remarks, including casting aspersions towards me by accusing me of harassment and stalking - accusations he's made in the past and has still never offered one shred of evidence for. The second-to-last paragraph's aspersions are simply surreal - I can't even make head or tail of what he's talking about. I admit, my tone was brusque and I allowed myself to be provoked into that, but my patience with this editor has worn thin.

Carmaker1 may or may not be correct on the information itself - I doubt all the links to door jamb stickers he posted can be considered reliable sources either way - but in any case, the content isn't the issue here. It is after all quite a small error, if it is indeed erroneous.

The issue is Carmaker1's clear incompatibility with Wikipedia. Years of editing, at least ten AN/I threads now, and even an ARBCOM request, by multiple editors, show a distinct pattern. Having been blocked for incivility in the past, he's learned to toe that line to avoid sanctions. It's a tactic I've seen used successfully by others over the years - be just unpleasant enough to deal with that other editors give up rather than be on the receiving end of his attitude. He uses claims of being an industry insider as a cudgel to "pull rank" against other editors, and disregards WP:V and WP:NOR. He has a long history of needlessly throwing shade at other editors for things done many years ago - most recently here - and still can't stop with the aggressive edit summaries. I'd hoped that Carmaker1 would finally get it and start editing collaboratively but at this point the likelihood of that appears infinitesimal. --Sable232 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• He’s been blocked and warned about this before, and at one point was subject to an arbcom case request which the arbitration committee declined to hear (surprise, surprise) so perhaps it’s time we try something more extreme. 2600:1011:B16E:8A05:A84C:C212:FECC:3926 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• I can't believe editor time is still being wasted on arguments over the exact date that the first 2021 Bronco Turbo Special Edition came off the assembly line, and similar fanboy nonsense. Photos of door jamb stickers and links to dealer advertisements [89] -- you must be joking. And what are we supposed to do with a diff like this [90]? Read the edit summary, then try clicking on refs [10] and [11] and ask yourself whether we should put up with an editor who thinks stuff like that can be used as a source for his "inside information". EEng 03:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is the issue that he's being incivil, or is the issue that he's wrong? The latter seems to be a content dispute. jp×g 07:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that he seems incapable of abiding by basic stuff like WP:OR, and goes nuclear when he's called on it. EEng 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In the lengthy diff provided by OP, CM1 in effect calls OP a liar. Narky Blert (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Its that Carmaker is both uncivil and refuses to abide by our basic policies regarding sourcing requirements. And this has been going on for years. Just topic ban them from anything car-related, they are clearly not going to change their ways. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Bradv, Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Casliber, DGG, Joe Roe, and Xeno: You're the arbcom members who declined to hear this last time and look what happened: right back on the ANI board, as predicted. You maybe wanna do something FOR the community this time and address this - again - so we can edit in peace? God knows it would be appreciated, all the more so since we told you last time it would end with you're input or not at all. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why an Arbcom case is needed for such a routine matter. Surely any admin can block an editor who has expressed the intention of not editing in accordance with our policies? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would have thought so - also if no source can be found for the sentence in question it should be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(pinged) The last request was declined because the ANI discussion was closed before the community has had time to actually discuss it and some of us felt it necessary to allow for the community to try and solve it themselves since arbitration is the final step of dispute resolution. If the community discussed this and was unable to solve it, you are welcome to create a new request. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a WP:PBLOCK. Carmaker1 cannot edit the Ford Bronco article. This should be seen as an interim step without prejudice to further action being taken, such as an ARBCOM case of the imposition of a full block should another admin feel that is warrented. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thanks Tom! Since I left ArbCom a year ago, I've really missed being used as a collectivised punching bag at random intervals. Having said that, you might bear in mind that I—and three of the other people you pinged—voted to accept the case. In any case, I don't know what you expect us to do about it now. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You're welcome :) As for now, how about joining us in discussing the t-ban or site ban proposals. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I think it bears mentioning that the material facts of the dispute in question seem rather strongly slanted towards Carmaker1 being correct in his assertions. The unreliable sources he's using in the initial diffs are being posted to a talk page to illustrate an argument. Moreover, the Bronco cannot have "started production in June" if there are company documents showing that production started in May, and photographs of Broncos manufactured in May. While these don't quite meet most construals of WP:RS, I don't think a reasonable person can raise any objection to the facts of what they demonstrate. And while I don't think they merit citation in the article, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that sources which make factually incorrect statements should be removed (and I don't think saying that ought to be a rationale for an indef). If there's other stuff, well, there's other stuff, but this thing in its own right doesn't seem to be that horrible. jp×g 22:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the ARBCOM members from the time period, I've left a message for a handful of people who have posted here concerning Carmaker1's behaviour and a handful of admins who have taken action against him since he's been here in hopes of building a better picture of the current state of affairs and to (hopefully) allow for more discussion of the matter at hand and of the two proposals listed below. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

(I added the header to what previously was two comments in this discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC))

• A topic ban from anything automotive-related is what's needed. This has been going on for years and years and years and years. EEng 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with EEng, I think everyone is sick of the time this continually takes up on this board and elsewhere. It's beyond disruptive at this point and it's clear, and been made clear, that they're not capable and willing to work in a co-operative fashion and within the policies and guidelines of this project. A topic ban from automobiles, very broadly construed and see if they're able to edit in other areas (I find it doubtful personally.) Though at this point and outright indefinite block and potential community ban I would also support. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not just automobiles, but rather anything automotive-related i.e. cars, trucks, buses, motorized construction equipment, Segways, scooters powered by any means conceivable, self-propelled unicycles, wind-up toy choo-choos, horseless carriages of whatever nature, kind, or description, roller skates, and so on and so forth. EEng 15:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Can we just make this "transport" in any form? Don't want the disruption to move to rail, aviation and shipping related articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I grudgingly admit that your formulation is more workable than mine. EEng 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say that we should ban anything automative-related from Wikipedia, for all the trouble the articles bring, but I suppose someone may come along who is actually prepared to base the articles on reliable sources. I suppose we'll have to settle here for banning this editor from such articles. The simplest way to do this would be to block the editor completely from Wikipedia, because I can't see anything else being edited constructively. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  [91] EEng 15:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite Block Proposal

I am sorry to say this, but I do not think the topic ban proposal will protect the project. Carmaker1's disruption and combative attitude on automotive topics have been well-documented by others above and in the linked prior discussions but it is trivial to find the very same issues on other topics they've edited. This has mostly been on articles about individual songs. For example, this edit, where they change a date based on unverifiable personal knowledge and then reinstate based on a poor source. The personal attack in the second edit summary is also a part of the previously documented pattern. In order to prevent further disruption on the project and more wasting of other editors' time, a full block is necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as I mentioned above, I doubt they're able to not continue their pattern in other areas. This user has taken up too much time and effort from the community, not just on these boards but in the disruption they cause on the articles they choose to edit. They are clear about not following our policies and guidelines. Enough is enough. Canterbury Tail talk 16:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with this outcome, per my edit above. An indefinite block should come with a community ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Someone who has been here and editing pretty regularly since 2007(!) should be pretty familiar with how things work here. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As this behavior spills over into other topic areas such as songs as Eggishorn notes above, a topic ban would only exacerbate the problem in that and potentially other areas. Years of this behavior will not change with a topic ban. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm not an admin and I'm on this page reporting a couple of other things, but something about this case reminded me of a case from almost ten years ago. There was an editor Barnstarbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) who for years until 2011 "owned" the article Chevrolet Vega. It was ownership to the point of clinical obsession. Eventually he was blocked, then came back for a bit of sockpuppeting (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barnstarbob) and eventually disappeared. Is this the same editor returned to obsess about a different car model? --10mmsocket (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This may or may not be the same person, but it doesn't really matter because Carmaker1 should be blocked and banned anyway. Sockpuppetry would just be an extra reason not to entertain a future attempt at overturning. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember the Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob issues as well. Highly unlikely Carmaker1 is the same editor - the editing style is completely different. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I just went back through the B.S.Bob edits and I think you are right. Bob made far fewer edit summaries and although they were quite pointy when he did, the language isn't the same. Strike my suggestion! 10mmsocket (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is LONG overdue if you ask me. Get with the program, or get out. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Rohan7908

Rohan7908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some peculiar reason this new user is focused on the (nonexisting) relation between Tajlu Khanum and Sam Mirza Safavi, occasionally altering information to make it seem as they were mother and son, which wasn't the case.

Tajlu Khanum:

14 August 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son

7 October 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son

7 October 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son

7 October 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son, as well as more unsourced stuff

Sam Mirza Safavi:

14 August 2021 - Altered sourced info, changing Sam Mirza Safavi's mom

15 August 2021 - Altered sourced info, changing Sam Mirza Safavi's mom

7 October 2021 - Altered sourced info, changing Sam Mirza Safavi's mom

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Monarer & Somali clans

Monarer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account focused on Somali clan lineages. Almost all of their edits have consisted of removing, adding, or changing information without providing any source (e.g., [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]). I have tried to warn them on their talk page [98], but even after two 'final warnings' they continued with the same behavior [99] [100]. This may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, though some of their later edit summaries do seem to respond to the warnings about sourcing by mentioning (inadequate) sources ([101] [102] [103]; these may also be in response to my own revert edit summaries, which also warn about the need to provide sources). Still, there is a clear WP:IDHT element in making sweeping changes to a genealogical table of which they have been specifically warned that it cannot be modified without providing a new source [104]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Llywelyn2000

Could some administrators who are unrelated to WMUK (or Wales for that matter) please read and comment at the above sockpuppet investigation. It is currently on the recieving end of what can only be described as blatant whitewashing and/or canvassing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature of the explanation offered I wouldn't expect any other response. GeneralNotability & Tamzin seem to be doing just fine picking through an awkward case. Cabayi (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Intentional copyright violations by TenthEagle

TenthEagle has knowingly introduced copyright violations at least since they were informed of the issue by Diannaa in June. I raised the issues again today after finding they copied plot synopses on Adult Material, a common form of copyright violation (revdelled in record time by Hut 8.5 after I flagged it—thanks). TenthEagle has a personal policy of blanking all constructive criticism on their talk pages with rude messages, so there is little chance of them choosing to act differently in future. I do not have much free time at the moment, so I have not determined the scale of the problem. Perhaps someone can see if a CCI is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is quite an experienced editor, but I don't have a problem blocking them until they engage with the issue. So that's what I've done. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed status gaming by AkweQ520

On 31 August AkweQ520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a number of controversial caste-related edits to article Other Backward Class. Another user Piyushkumar911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made very similar edits before this the day before. I'm not immediately making a sockpuppet accusation but it might be worth a look by an admin who knows more about SPI cases. However, following their efforts, on 1 September the page was semi-protected for one month expiring 1 October. Fast forward to 5 October and suddenly AkweQ520 made a huge number of rapid-fire minor edit in a very short time, each of which he/she immediately self-reverted on two articles Chudasama and Fire engine. These edits were enough to get AkweQ520 auto-confirmed status. Today AkweQ520 made the same controversial edits to the original Other Backward Class article. OK it's not semi-protected any more, but should it be then AkweQ520 would immediately be excluded from editing due to the new autoconfirmed status. Having looked through his/her edits, including those not related to the caste articles, I don't honestly think this is an editor working in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. I think it's someone gaming the system to push their caste agenda. Oh, and this edit is pure diversionary BS. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked AkweQ520 indefinitely. I have very little tolerance for abuse of status edits, especially when they're immediately followed by controversial edits on controversial topics. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Do you think the other editor is just a red herring? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Probably. Though an SPI would be the only way to be sure. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)