Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Annette Maon

The user has engaged at extensive conflict about neutral point of view policy at Talk:Elon Musk, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive334#Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting, User talk:Annette Maon, and more at their contributions. My only action is to explain about Wikipedia's etiquette, but the user is likely wasting time from other editors, engaging in conflicts for the sake of it, and has no interest in building the encyclopedia. I suspected that this is a sockpuppet by an active spaceflight editor, given their history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Conduct_of_User:Annette_Maon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User made a threat to submit a Good Article Reassessment on Elon Musk if corrections for issues that they "saw" were not made. User has persistently brought up their disagreements in existing and unrelated discussions on the Elon Musk Talk page, often at the expense of the original matters. 17:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this editor's activity on the Elon Musk page has been disruptive. They have dominated the talk page of late with a strongly one-sided POV. Stonkaments (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this and say that this user showed up at the 2021 Top 50 Report to completely rewrite the section on Musk, claiming it violates WP:BLP without describing why (rejecting my explanation that the Report is meant to be humorous and also pinging random uninvolved admins on talk). Based on what's already been said here and my personal experience, Annette Maon doesn't seem to be here to contribute to an encyclopedia. JOEBRO64 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, I absolutely agree with their revert here, and I'd like to hear from User:Stwalkerster as well. I didn't know that the Top50 was supposed to be funny, and I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also agree with the reversion. "It was a joke" is not a defense against BLP. Annette Maon pinged me because they're presumably still salty that I deleted a similar "humorous" page of theirs that had been tagged as a G10 attack page, and is now trying to make it a whole thing with me playing the part of "BLP police", I guess. Regardless, they may have made the reversion for less-than-stellar reasons, but the action in itself was the correct one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My use of the phrase "BLP Police" was in reference to a different incident which I am still trying to process. It reflected my limited WP:NEWCOMER understanding about when the Wikipedia community chooses to use "rev-del", a term I had not been aware of at the time. I would appreciate any pointers to policy and/or examples that elaborate on Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" and would allow me to learn about the process and dynamics from other people's mistakes so I can avoid blundering myself. I understand why Writ Keeper could have interpreted "BLP police" as a reference to their own actions instead of the ones I had in mind. It is important for me to clarify that I respect both Writ Keeper and Barkeep49 as people that I want to learn from and would not have used the phrase "BLP Police" to refer to them or to any of their actions. As I said in the original post which TheJoebro64 linked here "I will defer to their judgment". I made some suggestions for going forward on the talk page which reflect my own WP:NEWCOMER understanding as it continues to evolve. I hope that at least some of those suggestions are useful enough to be incorporated into the final version by someone with more experience than me. I would also appreciate comments from experienced editors on what I might still be missing. Annette Maon (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm in agreement that the text as it was is nowhere near appropriate; my edit (IMHO) vastly improved the situation but I think it's still not great and could certainly be improved further, though it's probably best to rip it out and rewrite it completely. I have neither the time, energy, or motivation to sort it out properly - my motivation with that edit was to make the problem less urgent. For the most part, what remains I think is sourced, albeit in fairly poor taste and with a clear axe to grind against the subject. stwalkerster (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here, stwalkerster--thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies, for what it's worth, I actually wasn't the one who wrote the Musk section. If it was a BLP violation, I apologize and acknowledge that I made a mistake—but I didn't write it, I merely reverted because it'd been months and was changed by someone who had no involvement with the report. JOEBRO64 21:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TheJoebro64, thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to that top 50 discussion but did not have time to do much beyond read it. What I read clearly contained BLP violations and am glad that stwalkerster decided to excise some of it. I recently gave Annette Maon a firm warning about BLP violations and am glad she's taken that feedback on board though I have no comment about whether the way she went about doing it was correct or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to keep the discussion on Talk:Elon Musk and reach consensus there. Since it has been brought here (not by me), I would appreciate some input about having "a hard time reaching consensus that BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice". The BLP subject's twitter criticism of the quality of Wikipedia curation on his article has received wide media coverage. Those who mansplain to me that "Musk doesn't have the final say on what warrants inclusion in the article" are completely missing the point. I never said or thought that he should have any say. Regardless of what happens on the talk page or here, he will still have an army of twitter "trolls" that try to do what he says. What I am concerned about is the actual quality of Wikipedia curation on the BLP article that happened to receive the most pageviews in 2021. Looking at the state of Talk:Elon Musk since I got there, it seems that there is some room for improvement. I thought that would be a priority, but I am starting to have doubts about that. Annette Maon (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page how to discuss the issues. You have failed to do so. You originally opened up a discussion with an ultimatum which is not a discussion. Based on the agressiveness of your responses, I think I am leaning towards OP's recommendation about education on NPOV. The article does have room for improvement but the way you are currently going about it is WP:POVPUSHing.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to chime in that my concern is the constant attacks on the project and editors. 'Mansplainin' used above, current user page in the 'Seeking Mentor', previous not so subtle personal attack directed at me. They have an agenda and whether its WP:ADVOCACY, WP:LAB, or plain ole trolling it adds up to disruptive editing and a disrespectful attitude to fellow editors of the project as a whole.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I was coming here to add that User:Annette_Maon#Looking_for_a_mentor, by itself but especially when paired with the user's hostile attitude to other editors, is very concerning re. motivations for editing and community/project civility. I'd suggest an active civility warning, active BLP warning, and TBAN on Musk, and see where we go from there. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is their definiton of consensus Special:Diff/1071029840, which amount to my edit stays, not status quo and my personal favorite, yet another personal attack that quickly gets stricken Special:Diff/1071012272Slywriter (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The context for that last one is that I replied to their messages at the Top 50 talk, not about Musk, then I saw the Musk stuff and was going to their talkpage to leave a message about maybe not poking other editors with a big stick to get your way. Then I saw their user page and this ANI thread message and had to point it out. How they saw that I had left a comment here before replying to me at the Top 50 talk would suggest they were actually following me, but it is ironic that as soon as I say they should be civil they leave me a personal attack accusing me. You know, rather than the simple truth that if they are doing noticeable things they will get noticed. Actually, that specific Diff is about Sly. I'd quote that meme about incredibly similar things happening twice but I am not surprised. If they want to blame their attacks on their paranoia, then we have a CIR issue: too paranoid to function collaboratively. They are a ridiculously hostile editor who would rather make personal attacks and then use those to disregard others than listen to policy. Kingsif (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Previous issues

It's only a few weeks since Annette Maon has had significant issues at another BLP article (well, BLP/BDP) - link. One may be an error, but two appears to be a problem (note also Barkeep49's comment about warnings). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice"

Putting aside all the personal attacks and innuendo against me. The ongoing talk page discussion about whether there should be "a mainspace section dedicated to Jeffrey Epstein" was going nowhere before I created this section. If being dragged here is the price I have to pay for getting that WP:UNDUE WP:BLP problem removed and restoring some semblance of curation to the process, I am willing to pay it. If the dynamics surrounding that section was the only problem, I would not have been wondering about the need for a WP:GAR (which I did NOT ask for). Moving on to other content issues. It has been extremely difficult to reach consensus on Talk:Elon_Musk that phrases like 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should be quoted and attributed instead of being stated in Wikipedia voice. Other articles dealing with similar content issues (i.e. Joe Rogan) do not seem to have this curation problem in mainspace (I haven't checked Talk:Joe Rogan). I am starting to wonder if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users" (Thank you Slatersteven). Annette Maon (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are doing it again. QRep2020 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet more inappropriate language crying vandalism and BLP violations rather than discussing content - Special:Diff/1071111456.Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed this thread when I went over to their TP to warn them about their edit-warring on the Orson Scott Card article, where they've shown a flagrant disregard of NPOV and a deep investment in promoting the article subject for the past several months, including both the removal of reliably sourced material and the addition of self-serving cruft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming here that being skeptical about COVID-19 policy is worse than genocide:

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

WP:WIKIVOICE

Musk was criticized for his public comments and conduct related to the COVID-19 pandemic.[306][307] He spread misinformation about the virus, including promoting chloroquine and assuming that death statistics were manipulated.

Elon_Musk#COVID-19

Others have made incorrect assumptions about my POV which forces me to clarify it for the record:

• I do not support Musk's views on COVID-19.
• I do not support Musk's promotion of people who are accused of "spreading misinformation".
• I got vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19 (as soon as I could).
• I actively avoid being in the same room with anyone who has not been vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19.
• I do believe that Musk has a right to be skeptical.
• I believe that Musk has a right to make mistakes.
• I believe that if Edison hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have lightbulbs.
• I believe that if Musk hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have the Falcon 9.
• I do not support the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie
• I do support the right of Janis Ian to disagree with me about Skokie
• I do not believe my personal POV is or should be relevant to the contents of any Wikipedia Article including Elon Musk

Another consensus that seems to be forming here is that WP:UNCIVIL behavior toward me is acceptable even when it includes:

• rudeness, insults and name-calling
• personal attacks, disability-related slurs
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety
• belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts
• taunting or baiting
• lying
• quoting me out of context to give the impression I said something I didn't say

As a WP:WikiGnome in training, I could provide links to each of the bullet points above. But that would be taking the bait and feeding the trolls. So I will try again to "talk about content, not users".

This discussion may be "dominated by the loudest and most persistent editorial voices" but a quick look at Talk:Elon_Musk shows that even they have to work hard to keep up the illusion that stating "He spread misinformation" in WP:WikiVoice is "Uncontested and uncontroversial".

I am still wondering if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users". Annette Maon (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You have obviously thought about this issue quite a lot, so let me ask, did Musk spread misinformation about the virus, or is that merely someone's opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that ANI is just a more public forum to talk about content, or are deflecting. In case you need to be told, this forum is for editor issues. This is where we talk about users, not content. The topic of discussion here is not the contents of the Elon Musk or Orson Scott Card articles, it is your behavior while trying to implement certain versions of them, as well as general comments. Continuing to insist that your versions are correct is doing the opposite of helping; it is rather quite demonstrative of the issues that have landed you here. Kingsif (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1071406173 & Special:Diff/1071390667- just more inability to discuss content without attacking editors and more of their special brand of consensus where the status quo can't stay.Slywriter (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/10714095750- Intentional misquoting of another editor to make a point not grounded in policy or logic.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue raised by OP is the conduct of a user. The discussion has since evolved in discussion about content. This is not the place for that. In fact, Annette Maon was told not only here, but on the Elon Musk talk page and their own talk page how to properly address a content dispute. They have failed to do so and continuing bludgeoning. I think we have done more than WP:AGF but AGF isn't a WP:PACT. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for close (Annette Maon)

Editors have raised issues above including incivility, disregard of NPOV, CIR, bludgeoning, and BLP problems after a warning. They have recommended remedies including a civility warning, BLP warning (there's already one in place), and a TBAN from Elon Musk. I support a civility warning, having been on the wrong end of Annette Maon's incivility. Regardless, I encourage an admin to close this section, whether it's with action taken or not, rather than let another discussion of this editor's conduct archive without closure. Firefangledfeathers 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adjacent discussion about DS templates and their use. Isabelle 🔔 16:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: What was the point of posting three discretionary sanction notices on one talk page, all within the same section? What did that achieve exactly? I've not seen that anywhere on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Scope creep: I posted two notices because Annette Maon's comments on Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting (now rev-deleted) implicated two DS areas (BLP and American politics). Later, she edited a part of Elon Musk that involved his comments about COVID-19, another DS area. The alerts don't lead to formal awareness in any topic area besides the one mentioned, so one alert is insufficient for users working in multiple sensitive subjects. Positing multiple alerts in one section is common. This log includes every edit action that includes a formal DS notice, and 2 of the last 10 edits were multi-notices. I could have spread the alerts into separate sections, and if there's a good reason to do so moving forward, I'd be happy to improve my notification work. This part is speculation, but if the subtext of your comment involves the DS alert process being problematic, I agree with you, as do many others. There's an ongoing review of the whole DS system, outlined here. Firefangledfeathers 13:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Three is excessive, two is excessive. A note left on the talk page would have probably been better in this instance, in the 2nd and 3rd instances. They are the worst kind of message to use in user-interaction, certainly the worst i've seen. The worst of is they leave the editor feeling uncertain what to do or how to go forward. It break down creativity and enthusiasm, the best intention are destroyed. I don't like the DS system either. It is destructive. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Well, I'd love not to ruin your week. It's likely that I would agree with a lot of your issues with the DS system. As it stands now, no, I couldn't have posted a personalized message in lieu of the formal notices. Per WP:ACDS, "these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". Firefangledfeathers 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: I followed scope_creep to here as it is he who is guilty of "worst kind of message to use in user-interaction, certainly the worst i've seen". My jawed dropped that he could be so blind to his own imperfections while pointing out others supposed mistakes. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies, Barkeep49, Black Kite, and Johnuniq: pinging the admins that have commented in this discussion. Are any of you willing to close this? I would also be responsive to a suggestion that archival without closure is the best scenario here, and I intend to take a lack of response here as a sign that we should just drop it. Firefangledfeathers 13:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not been, and likely will not be for at least a couple more weeks, in any position to consider Annette's actions at Musk which this thread seems largely about. Her actions at the Top 50 suggests she has improved her understanding of BLP since I left her the warning but beyond that am not in a position to assess or close this thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I'm afraid I'm also sort of bowing out, due to time constraints--but also lack of interest. After so many years here it becomes more and more difficult to muster the energy to deal with the veritable walls of text from disruptive editors, and Annette Maon's comments from the 12th in this thread certainly qualify as that--but if, as Barkeep says, things have improved, then maybe we should let it go. The editor has been warned, informed of DS, and chastised corrected by other editors. Perhaps that's enough for now. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The long and tedious comments by Annette Maon point to the future when meta:Universal Code of Conduct arrives. I'd be inclined to leave this section for the archive bot but take bold admin action if the troll-like nature of talk page commentary continues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Spam on Ashraf Ali Thanwi

I see @TheAafi: is using his/ her self written articles/ books as reference on various wikipedia articles, especially on Ashraf Ali Thanwi, see this and this . It is clear violation of Wikipedia:Spam. Administrator are requested to take necessary action in this regard. Thank you 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I was watching this IP from last few moments and didn't go here and there reverting their edits when they clearly mentioned wrong guideline, WP:ELNO when they removed the reference. I believe the usage of the reference is permitted per WP:SELFCITE and this bad-faith report should be dismissed. I'd try to look for some available sources to improve the article, thus lessening the usage of this particular source, although it isn't used all over. The time I used it, it was in replacement of unreliable/blog sources. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The site haqislam.org is a blog. Why are you adding it in articles? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: You are not allowed to promote yourself on wikipedia. It is clearly against Wikipedia's policies. Go somewhere else to promote yourself, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Looks like you missed something. The haqislam blog was removed and I added a published source from TheChenabTimes.com (a news portal). I don't think this is self promotion? The IP-user is clearly acting in bad-faith. The source I used is inline with WP:SELFCITE imho. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, good to remove the blog. Without me going and digging through your diffs, how many times have you cited yourself in the last 30 days? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Nowhere! ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you are confusing me, or maybe I'm confusing you. You said you posted a cite that was inline with WP:SELFCITE, so I'm asking, how many times in the last 30 days have you done so. I ask this as I'm going through your two accounts. It isn't a matter or trust, it's a matter of verification for myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I edited the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article over a month ago, and replaced a blog with an article that I've myself written and is published on a news portal. Is the confusion over? I've nowhere else cited myself not just in the last 30 days but in last two years. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that is all I was asking. When someone makes a report, I'm going to look at the claims and see if they are accurate. You coming here and simply saying "it is false" isn't enough. Everyone says that. So there isn't a need to be defensive. What we need are facts. Saying you added one cite in the last year or two under SELFCITE, and me verifying (as best I can), this is establishing facts. Obviously using your own cite every now and then where it applies is ok, I was trying to see if there was a pattern that was excessive, and I don't know until I look and ask (and by virtue of the report, I'm obligated to look and ask). So in the end, I don't see a problem with the editing and the IP is overreacting to something that is generally allowed, in moderation, if it is in line with WP:SELFCITE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. In such a case, shouldn't their overreacting edits on the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article be reverted? I also see that you left the IP a note on talk page, thanks for that. Looks like you missed adding a heading and used more than four tilde in that note. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in any sort of war with the IP and would leave all the good work related to this to you. I'm only here to improve and develop the encyclopedia and ofcourse to learn new things. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, This was not the first instance when the editor used his/her self written article but, he/ she had previously spammed Mufti Faizul Waheed with his/ her articles. Please check this. Not only this he/ she had inserted article written by him/ her from the blog link named Baseerat online, please check this. I suspect more self promotion by the same user in past which need to be dig out. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

One is a geniune citation over eight months ago, and the other is an EL (not citation). I might have forgotten to state this, but does that make sense? You're free to remove the EL, and leave the citation as is. Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is the earliest article where I remember using a source in line with WP:SELFCITE. I don't think I've done some excess. Nonetheless, I'd have a relook on all my contributions and be back with facts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown; As a matter of fact, I'm leaving this as a proof that there's no excess. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown This edit is clearly a Spam or self promotion and @TheAafi:, Baseerat online is a blog, along with the article, which you have cited, was written by you, it clearly indicates self promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you normally edit as a registered account? This entire report is very, very strange. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Just see their edits on Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi and Mufti Faizul Waheed; and you'll see they're on a long game. Possibly! That too, when this ANI thread is open. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop, User:TheAafi , to deviate the spam on different side to save yourself, anyways, I have tried my best to stop spam on Wikipedia, I am leaving this case for administrators to deal with it. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the way a run of the mill IP editor behaves. This looks entirely like a vexatious report. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave if you want, but I had already left a note on your talk page. Yanking sources without better justification can get you blocked. As far as SELFCITE, we are always leery of it's use (I've used it myself, many years ago), so I would just note you have to be careful reverting your own work back as cites. Some talk page discussion is always good. So is a disclaimer on your user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• And CFJ, I agree, and the IP is deleting references and bordering on their own block. But since I didn't see a disclaimer on Aafi's page, I still make the notes. Even I have a disclaimer for my work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One last note: it is one thing to link your own work as a reference, but doing so as an external link is just not a good idea in almost all circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I'd make a disclaimer note, but how to? Could you please give me an example? Thanks. I'm always trying my best to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  and I definitely agree with the usage of the external link and I really feel bad for it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  See my user page under Accountability. I just state I own a company (Solacure) and link to it, and state I won't edit in a way that financially benefits me. This provides the reader the ability to compare my edits to my company to see if there really is a conflict of interesting in my edits. I would suggest also adding a note "I work for this source; adding it under WP:SELFCITE" to the summary, so that not only are you complying, but you are inviting others to review, and keeping it all in the wide open. Full disclosure is less likely to come back on you. If it does, you can say "I disclose on my user page, I disclose in my edit summary" so there isn't a way to really question your honesty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. I've a COI page for this stuff. I added the three articles where I have added citations under SELFCITE during last three years. I'd surely add the note, if ever I added a self-cite to any article at the time of need. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I didn't see it, but I would make sure my user page had a conspicuous link to that COI page, or just transclude the page onto the user page. Same reason I put mine under "Accountability", which is pretty conspicuous. Really, these steps are more for you than for others. It also lets you search easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  At the top of my userpage, I've stated, " If you ever assume that I've a conflict of interest, please see my COI declarations...", in line with the COI disclosure guidelines. I hope someday I'll get time to design my userpage like yours! Thanks for all the notes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown; I just fixed the stuff at Mufti Faizul Waheed article, and while searching for more sources, I got a 2019 academic thesis on one of his books, and it was quite helpful. However, the IP's removal of sources from Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is troublesome, where they call a news-portal (which has editors) as a blog and spam. The IP also tagged the article for notability. I'd just leave this to uninvolved editors to have a look at the IP's behavior; who comes all of a sudden with only one motive, that's to open an ANI thread against me, and accuse me of self-promotion, which I've never done. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: and @Catfish Jim and the soapdish:; The IP doesn't stop from removing sources. They've once again removed a source from Mufti Faizul Waheed. If I'm right, this would be someone from the Authordom sockfarm. I looked around and found some interested stuff with some similar IPS. I had a look at an AfD on which a similar-IP "37.111.218.17" commented strong-delete, (the nominator of that AfD Sabeelul hidaya was blocked as a sockpuppet by Bbb23 recently). A yet another identical IP, 37.111.219.54 was involved at Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, and another identical IP, 37.111.217.63, seeks copyediting-help from Miniapolis at Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi. The IP had included a statement that sounds anti-Deobandi in nature in the Fazl-e-Haq article, and ant-Deobandism is the history of Authordom sockfarm, and I've been attacked only perhaps because I've come across them in past, and rescued several articles in deletion, that were tagged as such. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No deletions have happened since this thread started. Lets see what happens before we start swinging the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is still about as 37.111.218.70 (talk · contribs) and generally filibustering. All I'm going to say is that whether 'x' is a good source depends entirely on what it is citing, and in what context. After all, we have a consensus to cite The Sun in at least one BLP, despite my general view that you should avoid it like the plague. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems the IP range 37.111.192.0/18 fits with the editing pattern. – The Grid (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Long running original research in Dervish-related content

User @Heesxiisolehh: has repeatedly added original research for most, if not all of their time on Wikipedia. Despite letting him know multiple times as well as informing him of removals of content, in line with my special editing restrictions (see [1], [2], [3], [4], ). A peaceful resolution has not been reached as Heesxiisolehh refuses to cooperate (even reporting me for "breaching 3RR" despite not being the case [5], while also leaving me a "notice" on my talk page (link) a mere minute before leaving me a notice of that report (link)).

Heesxiisolehh has repeatedly used this Caroselli source to label all Dervish forts "Dhulbahante garesas" or "Dhulbahante forts" ([6], [7], [8]), which is not supported by the cited source or by any other source and is clearly original research. The consensus reached by the Italian editors he keeps using as justification (link) is also irrelevant since they discussed the translation of the source and the word garesa only, and the consensus does not back up Heesxiisolehh's claims.

Many articles Heesxiisolehh has either created or significantly contributed to have been found to be violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFY, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and having no WP:SIGCOV, among others (see Diiriye Guure (probably the most ambitious given all the articles that used to link to it [9]), Shire Umbaal,Nur Hedik,Adam Maleh, Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal as well as Kaaha Tafadhiig. He has been approached and been advised to read up on OR and SYNTH by me as well as by another user (link) however the user has clearly demonstrated that they will not stop.

In addition, after the deletion of the Diiriye Guure article he went on to remake most of the deleted article in the Las Anod article ([10], [11]) and link it to articles where links to Diiriye Guure were removed ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] including in Portal:Somalia link for that), which is another clear indication that Heesxiisolehh will not stop adding OR and SYNTH.

Heesxiisolehh has also in addition to that added unsourced original research to the main article, Dervish movement, misusing many sources which have been mentioned before. There are too many edits to mention but this is the main one, where despite me letting him know almost everything is original research, he goes ahead and re-adds the content, which violates WP:NOCONSENSUS. He also then proceeds to add even more new original research (What is a chieftainship-sultanate-emirate? That's a new word.). Heesxiisolehh has in addition added original research to the Somalia article ([22]), the Outline of Somalia article ([23]), the Geography of Somalia article ([24]), Portal:Somalia (link for that) and Dul Madoba ([25] while also using this as justification despite the fact that, ignoring the obvious synth and original research, the content he added isn't relevant). In Dul Madoba's case, he even moved the page ([26]), going against a long standing name per majority of reliable sources ([27]). Most of Heesxiisolehh's edits are also inconcise and very confusing (what is the intra-46th meridian east territories and why does it link to a burial site? [28]).

Heesxiisolehh has also created multiple categories based on the original research the editor has added, including Category:Border crossings of the Darawiish (the Dervishes were never a full state, which either way doesn't matter since historic entities shouldn't be having "border crossings" categories). Heesxiisolehh has added his original research to non-Somali articles, including Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900−present), List of states with limited recognition, Scramble for Africa, List of national border changes from 1815 to 1914, and Hewett Treaty.

To conclude, I have tried my best to assume good faith per WP:AGF even in the face of clear original research, and now I honestly doubt Heesxiisolehh is fit to edit Wikipedia as he is essentially on a mission to rewrite Dervish history to his own liking. Heesxiisolehh has breached more than half a dozen Wikipedia guidelines and has demonstrated multiple times that he is uncooperative. This reminds me of the user Shit233333334, an editor who also seems to have added a lot of original research to Horn of Africa-related articles and misused sources, in addition to sockpuppeteering ([29]). I should have submitted this report much earlier but I kept assuming good faith. Overall, I don't think Heesxiisolehh is here to build an encyclopedia. Gebagebo (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the filing of this report Heesxiisolehh has once again readded their original research to the Dul Madoba article [30] despite it not being supported by both cited sources, another indication that the editor intends to continue adding original research and synth. Gebagebo (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at both sources in the above diff and agree that it was entirely original research/analysis. The first source is available here, by clicking "View/Open" at the bottom". That author has included many primary sources, mostly a series of angry letters, and it's one of these primary sources that Heesxiisolehh is analyzing. So it's not the author's claim that there was a Dervish-Dhulbahante government, but an ambiguous claim in a letter. The second source is available here, by zooming in about two-thirds down the third column. Not only is this an unattributed war dispatch from 1903 in the Cardiff Evening Express, a terrible source for claims like these, but the source doesn't even support what Heesxiisolehh is using it for. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: As outlined above Heesxiisolehh has a history of adding original research and analysis, with almost a dozen of Heesxiisolehh's articles being deleted due to breaking WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and more. Heesxiisolehh has also been advised by @TimothyBlue: see here and @Kzl55: see here to refrain from such as well. Gebagebo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at page 76 of Raphael Njoku (link provided) published by ABC-Clio, you see the "government" phrase included, suggesting a) tertiary usage of letter, and b) that academics consider the letter (particularly the "government" passage) notable. As for the 1903 source, that is further buttressed by this source (link & passage provided), published by H.M. Stationary Office. Further strengthening the 1903 source is a 1976 issue by scholar with 105 peer reviews on Google scholar (link provided) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't analyze primary sources. That's original research. If reliable, secondary sources say—in their own voice—that there was a "Dervish-Dhulbahante government", then we can cite that. As for the additional Deria Gure sources, they still don't support the claim that Guure was "head of Dhulbahante clan". The original (poor quality) source only said that he was "corresponding to [a] commanding Royal Engineer". The new sources only say that he should surrender. They're also primary sources. Look, WP:NOR makes it clear that we need to leave any primary source analysis to secondary sources, the actual experts. And WP:V says that claims need to be directly and unambiguously supported by reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: What about the quote "These men are the heads of their respective tribes", in the 1903 Evening Express source. Doesn't that quote unambiguously suggest Gure is the "head of Dhulbahante clan"? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim you added was Diiriye Guure being head of Dhulbahante clan. That source says he is one of "four principal leaders" and clarifies later that he was somewhat like a Royal Engineer. So no, it doesn't support the claim you added to the article. Besides, as I mentioned early, it's an awful source, as British sources about British colonies/"protectorates" often were. (As an example, see WP:RAJ.) There's also no author by-line, it credits another source that we don't have, and the page is filled with all kinds of gossipy "news", like something you'd see at the Daily Mail. For claims like this, we need reputable scholarly sources—preferably modern ones—that can analyze primary documents scientifically. Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In the 25 year existence of the Nugaal revolution, 1903 was arguably the closest to a free press in the Nugaal, per (Press freedom in Nugaal link), nonetheless I guess I could take to heart eschewing to my innate fret of treading between meticulous-to-detail versus WP:Paraphrasing. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: None of the sources suggest the original research you have been adding. The first source mentions no "Dervish-Dhulbahante government" nor a king being superior to the Mullah. Pure original research.

The second source only lists a number of highranking Dervish members (including Sultan Nur, Haji Sudi and the Mullah himself) who have no guarantees should they surrender. The Jaamac source similarly is nothing but a Somali translation. The other highranking Dervish members are in that Jaamac source as well in line with the British colonial source ([31] see here). Heesxiisolehh seems to have intentionally left out that part of the passage.

The entire passage including a translation reads:

"Iyadoo aan loo malaynayn marnaba in Wadaadku isdhiibo, hadana isaga iyo kuwa raacsan oo kala ah: Axmed Warsame oo loo yaqaan (Xaaji Suudi): Diiriye Carraale iyo Diiriye Guure waxa qur ah oo laga oggolaan karaa isdhiibid aan shuruud lahayn; wax sugan oo ballanqaad ah oo noloshooda dambe laga siin karaa ma jirto"

Translated it means:

"Since it is very unlikely that the Mullah will ever surrender, him and his followers who are: Ahmed Warsame known as Haji Sudi, Deria Arale and Deria Gure can solely be permitted to capitulate and give themselves up, without any conditions. We do not attach any agreements or safeguards hereafter."

Per Official History of the Operations in Somaliland. 1901–1904, Vol. I p. 54:

"In the unlikely event of the: Mullah offering to surrender, in his case and that of the Following: Haji Sudi, Deria Arale, Deria Gure Only an unconditional surrender should be accepted no guarantee of any kind to future treatment been given. Sultan Nur the , sultan of the Habr Yunis, may be guaranteed his life"

This is a clear attempt by Heesxiisolehh to misuse sources to make it seem like his original research is supported by reliable sources. Gebagebo (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

More addition of original research (some since the filing of the report), this time in the Dervish movement (Somali) article ([32], [33], [34]). Heesxiisolehh is showcasing again and again that he does not intend to stop. Gebagebo (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And now he just moved the Dervish page in line with his OR. @Woodroar: I doubt this will end to be honest. Gebagebo (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything here. I can only ask that an admin gets involved with a trouting, page ban, or block of Heesxiisolehh. I'm no expert on this subject, granted, but every single reliable source I've seen has associated the Dervish movement with Somalia, yet Heesxiisolehh unilaterally moved the page to Dervish movement (Nugaal). Then he changed most instances of "Dervish" to "Darawiish", despite "Dervish" being the common name in reliable sources (that I've seen) and the English language in general. That last link also includes several instances of analysis of primary sources, which I'd specifically told Heesxiisolehh is not acceptable above. Woodroar (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For anyone interested in government sanctioned Dervish maps, here you go (they don't align with all of Somalia) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC):

Ibraahim Muxamed map

Ministero delle colonie (Ministry of the Colonies (Italy)) map

Boocame District, Taleh District, Xudun District, Las Anod District, Bookh district (of Ethiopia) and Nugaaleed-Bari

See, this is the issue. It's not "according to independent, reliable sources" or even "scholar X says Y", it's primary documents from ~100 years ago which Heesxiisolehh is interpreting to make broad, sweeping changes to the article. It doesn't matter that a WP:COMMONNAME search for "dervish movement" "somalia" -wikipedia returns 15,200 results while "dervish movement" "nugaal" -wikipedia returns only 1,230 results. Woodroar (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: You hit the nail on the head. Heesxiisolehh is exactly interpreting primary sources on his own, which is wrong by itself, but the fact those interpretations also contradict reliable sources makes the matter even worse. Dervish is the common name indeed, with Daraawiish being the Somali term. I hope an admin gets involved since he has demonstrated that he will continue on this path of disruption, which would have a serious effect on Somali-related articles, who are already rife with original research, POV edits and edit wars. Gebagebo (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Could you take a look at this please before this gets archived? There seems to be a consensus from what I can see. Gebagebo (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: are you going agree to stop your original research and disruptive editing? If not then you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 19:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: OK good, thank you. @Gebagebo: if you notice any further issues please let me know. GiantSnowman 19:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thank you very much! I'm removing the original research/analysis in question. I won't hesitate to let you know should Heesxiisolehh repeat this. Gebagebo (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Calton again

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

---

On the 11th of February, an unregistered user went on the 2021 page and added in the June section the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin. It had long been established, in part due to Talk page discussion (which I personally had nothing to do with), that the event is primarily of domestic US significance and therefore had long been relegated to 2021 in the United States (the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and verdict is also not included) - so I reverted the edit and restored the status quo against inclusion. Calton (talk · contribs) then reverted my edit with the summary "Worldwide attention, Mr. Gatekeeper". He used that same disparaging bad faith name towards me that he had used back in September 2021, and of which his behaviour towards me led to a [report] as well as [condemnation from other users] at the time.

I sent Calton a Talk page message making it clear that I did not appreciate him coming back after around four months only to again violate WP:CIV and not assuming good faith, and again referring to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" - behaviour for which he had already been formally cautioned. I asked that he never refer to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" again. His response on my Talk page speaks for itself: "I don't care what you think, Mr. Gatekeeper. You don't like being called a "gatekeeper", here's what you do: stop gatekeeping. Your prickly reaction tells me that you're well aware of what you're doing. Oh, and a reminder: the Norm MacDonald discussion had pretty much everyone saying that you were wrong. Maybe you should have remembered that bit before bringing it up". I would appreciate if something was done about this, because this is entirely unacceptable and bordering on WP:HA. TheScrubby (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Calton needs to calm it down and cut out the aspersions. However, I will point out that unless it's disappeared from the archives, there has never actually been a discussion about the Chauvin verdict; it was only brought up during the discussion about Rittenhouse, and even then was simply one user (Jim Michael) saying "it's not internationally notable" three times without any evidence (when it clearly was - how many verdicts end up being shown on live TV outside the country they're taking place in?). There probably needs to be a discussion about it now, because it hasn't clearly been decided, and it would probably help if it wasn't bludgeoned this time. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If there has been a firm discussion r.e. Chauvin, at the very least I wasn’t involved. What I do know is that Jim Michael did argue that the event, though receiving international coverage, was of domestic US significance only, and that the only aspect which had international relevance was the global protests against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s death. At the very least there was no opposition to what Jim Michael argued, and from June to now the 2021 page has reflected this by not including the Chauvin verdict, which at the very least could be construed as WP:EDITCON - and it’s worth noting that the Rittenhouse case did lead to a more substantial discussion, and which was ultimately excluded from the main 2021 page. All I had done was revert back to the status quo on this.

Ultimately though, none of this really matters. Even if there had been a consensus in favour of including the event, nothing excuses or justifies Calton’s conduct and constant bad faith allegations & demeaning labeling of those he disagrees with. What concerns me most is that he had already been reported and condemned for his past behaviour (not just towards me, but I also note towards other users over the years), and he had been formally cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this back in September, and Calton yesterday has made it crystal clear that he has zero intention of even acknowledging this and following through on the caution. I just don’t understand how this is at all a remotely acceptable standard on Wikipedia? TheScrubby (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Can concur with TheScrubby (talk · contribs). Unfolding here is a damning and awesome indictment in the form of past WP:AN and WP:ANI records.

• WP:AN Archive 74

• WP:AN Archive 164

• WP:AN Archive 166

• WP:ANI Archive 211

• WP:ANI Archive 217

• WP:ANI Archive 293

• WP:ANI Archive 317

• WP:ANI Archive 328

• WP:ANI Archive 349

• WP:ANI Archive 365

• WP:ANI Archive 462

• WP:ANI Archive 518

• WP:ANI Archive 788

That being said, however due to his longstanding productive contributions to Wikipedia, if a formal vote is held over this I would favor giving him the choice of a face-saving option entailing that of voluntary resignation in the form of self-requested blocks. With that he can choose to contribute in other projects like Commons which might suit him better. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So "damning and awesome", in fact, that the *newest* of those ANI reports is nine years old. Thanks for your input, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regardless of the time of the past records, the Universal Code of Conduct had been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation on December 9, 2020. This means that Calton's incivilities such as name-calling are de jure no longer acceptable. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Calton hasn't decided to even defend their actions here is an issue. This is an editor with a very long history of incivility that, as individual events, aren't sufficient to justify action but taken as a whole need a response. Their personal talk page is littered with requests from other editors to tone things down. About year and a half back they were topic blocked for incivility directed at me [35]. They were blocked in March 2020 (not in their block log though) [36], reminded of civility [37] yet here we are again. Perhaps the issue is just the topic areas they choose to work in. An AP tban vs a block might be a productive option. Doubling down after another editor raised a concern is not acceptable [38]. Springee (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Though of course that might be because he hasn't edited at all since this ANI was filed. And whilst a chance to remove an ideological opponent is de rigeur in that area, an AP ban for an edit on a page that isn't even covered by ARBAP is probably pushing it a bit. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, last time he was reported (over his conduct during the Norm Macdonald discussion in September), he chose to essentially not acknowledge the basis of that report and instead attempted to double down on bad faith accusations towards me - as if that at all justifies his conduct. Nor did he acknowledge at any point the caution issued by El C; and with his latest behaviour on both 2021 and his post on my Talk page, he has made it absolutely clear that he has no intention in remotely listening to anybody or to take heed of the original caution. After all, why should he? For all these years he has been allowed to conduct himself this way as if the rules don’t apply to him at all - because he knows that he would suffer no consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I would think content related to the Chauvin and the protests would count as American Politics even if the article in question isn't. I rarely edit the same articles as Calton and in this case I think I lean towards agreeing with Calton's edit. That said, this is an editor who repeatedly shows that they don't think CIVIL applies to them. They have been warned and blocked in the past but that doesn't stop them. Since short term blocks have proben ineffective I was suggesting keeping them out of problematic topic areas but I certainly would be open to something else that fixes the issue. Springee (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately according to past track records such as WP:ANI Archive 217, his incivilities isn't limited to American Politics. Next according to WP:ANI Archive 518, even Jimbo Wales himself has at one point criticized him. If a tban is to be enacted it has to be indefinite and cover all topics broadly construed, except perhaps some Japanese non-political local topics, such as geography, because the latter seems to be the only field so far where Calton is less prone to succumb to his incivilities. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In light of Calton’s behaviour not just towards myself, but towards what is evidently an innumerable number of users over the course of well over a decade, it does beg the question: what is the point of having WP:CIV or to ask people to assume good faith if we cannot apply this equally to everyone, or if we make excuses for/turn a blind eye to the actions of one user because they happen to be deemed otherwise substantive or "productive" contributors? Frankly, enough is enough. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and it is a damning indictment on Wikipedia that a bully like Calton has been tolerated for this long. Anywhere else, and Calton would have long been made persona non grata. This, incidentally, is why Calton will ignore warnings and condemnation from other users, and why he feels it is acceptable to continue behaving this way. Because you ostensibly have one set of rules for Wikipedia, and another for Calton. He knows he can get away with it without consequence, and so will not learn. It is a toxic cycle, and Calton is an extremely toxic user. Whatever levels of substance he may otherwise be judged to have should not be regarded as a factor at all if he is incapable of basic civility, and incapable of not being hostile & incapable of maintaining a basic respect for those he doesn’t agree with. TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the only admin to have weighed in so far and I'm not taking any action as serious as a block unilaterally, because I don't think - at the moment - that it justifies it. I'm not treating Calton any differently from any other user, but I'm certainly not going to block him for this one incident, and it isn't helping that our probably-a-sock 91.x IP address keeps butting in shrilly demanding action (FYI there is a long-running LTA sock which has targeted Calton), so I'm generally ignoring them as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t know anything about the latter (regarding the IP) to comment, though if that’s indeed the case then it’s understandable that you don’t take that into account (although I can’t say I disagree with the points this user has made). If not necessarily an outright block, what do you suggest would be an appropriate outcome? Calton after all had already been issued a formal caution regarding this back in September, and it’s deeply concerning that he made clear on my Talk page that he will not even acknowledge this and continue with his (entirely unprovoked, I should add) aspersions as if the caution never took place and the comments by other users condemning his behaviour were never written. TheScrubby (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no good reason to believe that casting needless whataboutisms and aspersions such as "probably a sock" or "he can be referred as a gatekeeper with an ad hominem vibe because he edited a lot in an article" is in any way helpful in this case. Per WP:YANI, nobody is irreplaceable and chances are there are one or more equivalent of Calton in the sense of the term, "ideological opponent", sans the chronic incivilities, partly because there are presumably increased interest in encyclopedic editing in this pandemic when everybody are forced to stay home. I'd propose that this to be moved forward by one or more impartial administrators or sysops to hold informal votes on whether to enact the options of a tban that would limit him to Japanese non-political topics and/or that of a voluntary resignation, given his concurrently long-standing positive and substantial contributions to Wikipedia. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore at just about the same time, Calton made a disparaging comment "There is no fucking "discussion". Sealion elsewhere." on an IP user's talk page. This reeks of WP:BITE and when these incivilities are a pattern rather than isolated instances, that's where it became a major problem. However, as the often-called face culture is socio-culturally prevalent in Japan, there's the danger that he will become disgruntled and come back as a vandal as in many cases if we move too rashly or harshly against him. Therefore the informal options of topic bans or WP:RETIRE should be considered. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For context for that message on an IP user's talk page, see the history of Talk:Manchester High School (Virginia) and Special:Contribs/27.33.119.160. Levivich 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See also: WP:Two wrongs don't make a right. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't two wrongs. Telling a troll to fuck off isn't wrong. Levivich 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor do editors supposed to be goaded and lose their cool upon being baited by trolls. Slap templates on their talk pages, or report them straight to the admins. That's all. The main problem remains that WP:CIR especially when dealing with personal emotions and behaviors while editing, and someone has been lacking the capability to control it for years while being condoned by the editing community like a missing stair, despite being concurrently an "OG" and productive user. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think Wikipedia is, some kind of finishing school or honor society? We don't judge editors for being goaded and losing their cool upon being baited by trolls. They're people, and people get goaded and lose their cool sometimes. It is not an expectation that in order to edit Wikipedia, one must avoid being human. Levivich 17:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And you know what's worse than people being goaded and losing their cool? The fucking assholes on the internet who spend years harassing editors because they had an argument one time. Those people ought to be prosecuted by law enforcement with greater vigor. I think a few highly-publicized arrests would have a deterrent effect, and I wish the WMF would throw more money at making that happen. Levivich 17:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuses based on the imperfection of humanity, in the end does not negate the fact that an uncivil environment is a poor environment, which in this context, would scare many potential productive editors away as long as the missing stair or the elephant in the room is ignored. Sure, I concur that there are actual malefactors who would goad these editors and disrupt the project, but usually most of them can handle it pretty well without stooping to their level. It is a pretty lame excuse to negate WP:CIR, and also WP:NOTTHERAPY. Furthermore, the past records indicated that there are instances where Calton succumbed to incivility anyways, be it gross level or not, without any malignant provocations beforehand, such as this case. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors responding to provocation are not part of the toxicity and incivility problems on Wikipedia; it's the people who abuse Wikipedia's open nature to commit WP:BLP violations, such as using an article about a high school to try and add some negative information about a living person, and using IP addresses to harass editors who try to stop those BLP violations from happening, that are the real problem. The single biggest problem facing Wikipedia is that people sometimes use Wikipedia to hurt other people. Nobody cares, and nobody will ever care, that an editor lost their patience when dealing with such scum. Levivich 19:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither should be deemed acceptable; nor should one excuse the other. And this is also under the assumption that Calton only behaves this way towards users generally regarded as “trolls”, which frankly is a laughable assertion. I don’t think it’s anything other than toxic to make excuses for this (persistent; very long-term) behaviour, and it again begs the question of why we even bother having WP:CIV or imploring on users to WP:AGF when users like Calton are given a free hand to openly disregard and violate this without consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can't agree more on that. To paraphrase an editor and an admin, Wikipedia isn't a bazaar, not a bar, nor a private playground. All the denials or covering-ups of the missing stair is downright surreal, or to put it bluntly, cringeworthy. We can agree by now that the can is at the end of the road. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I complain a lot about incivility and toxicity on WP, and I'm pretty sure I've complained specifically about Calton in the past. But I don't see "gatekeeper" as a personal attack at all. In fact, I see it as an accurate characterization of TheScrubby's editing at 2021, especially lately: [39]. If most of your edits over some significant amount of time (months?) consist of reverting other editors' additions, you're gatekeeping. Levivich 15:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I completely reject this characterisation. I’ve been an active contributor for these yearly pages for some time and the discussions on the Talk pages, but the reverts that I do make are usually to do with removing figures in line with Talk page consensus - which, unregistered IP users especially, often don’t check and hence they add said figures anyway. For almost a year there’s been a realisation there and discussions over the fact that the yearly pages have gone well beyond the recommended maximum Wikipedia article size (which was first brought to our attention by Deb (talk · contribs)), and that it was essential to limit the number of figures included in the main Deaths section & to ensure that those who are included have international notability (just ask Deb, or Jim Michael (talk · contribs), or Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs), or PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk · contribs), etc.). Reverts to do with images are mostly because usually when some users add additional images, it leads to an image overflow, which every regular contributor works to avoid. Reverts that I make on that page are virtually always in line with consensus and in line with the result of Talk page discussions, and in line with edits/reverts also made by other regular contributors. And no, there’s no way to construe “Mr. Gatekeeper” as anything other than a personal attack - especially when Calton doubles down after I ask him to never refer to me as that again, and especially when he has already been cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this and his overall conduct towards me back in September. He had no right to say it; it was entirely inappropriate; and it’s reflective of his nature where he think it’s okay to disregard WP:CIV and to go around making bad faith accusations towards those he disagrees with. TheScrubby (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    I think you're significantly misinterpreting prior discussions, such as the September ANI and that Norm McDonald thread. Levivich 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    • I don’t see how I am at all; it seems pretty clear-cut to me. With what happened in September (and I don’t wish to fully rehash this here as that has already been dealt with and the issue at hand is Calton’s continued behaviour up to now), to make it tl;dr PeaceInOurTime started a thread questioning Macdonald’s international notability; I briefly gave my two cents; Calton responded to me with uncalled for and out of the blue personal vitriol and attacks; this ultimately led to an ANI which ended with admins cautioning Calton over civility; other users expressed disgust over Calton’s personal confrontation towards me; the discussion ended with Macdonald’s inclusion and I happily went along with consensus. Regardless of whether or not one agrees or disagrees over content or with somebody’s two cents, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate for anybody to conduct themselves the way Calton did, which is toxic and would put people off from wanting to contribute to discussions. If that standard is considered acceptable, we may as well get rid of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and be done with it. TheScrubby (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As an aside and as a perspective, I'd like to bring the attention of everyone to this concurrently ongoing case whose problem is very similar to Calton's, such as incivilities on talk pages and edit summaries. You see, there was no problem in hopping to the stage where permanent blocks are actually going to be meted out in that case. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's tacky to mention my comments without telling me. From a very brief review, this thread is not very similar to the one I'm addressing. If I were planning on getting involved in this thread (which I'm not), I would handle it much differently than I am handling that thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording is incorrect so, it's my bad. Regardless, from a quick search here are three more past possible precedents of uncivil editors being censured by ways of blocks or bans.

• 1
• 2
• 3

To quote TheScrubby, had it been any other projects or platforms, or had it been other user(s), they would have long been made persona-non-grata. The Fram incident in a way or another can be argued as the end result of repeatedly kicking the can down the road which mistake I think we are repeating now, and it almost tore apart the whole project if not for the miraculous fluke of the world being distracted by the protests in Hong Kong back then. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, here is by far the closest analogue to this incivility spree. First edit in 2012, similar WP:BATTLEGROUND issues, briefly blocked before being unblocked in 2018, squandered it, then finally a not-so-pretty sitewide community ban in 2020. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a paragon of virtue for hypocrisy and double standards. The IP was blocked for good under WP:CIR despite the admin's guide that IPs should not generally be blocked in such way because most of the time they are dynamic addresses, and even as the user in question only lacked the command of English language. Furthermore, Calton was warned by an admin last August that he's on "very thin ice here", which if he had heeded and not take it for granted, we wouldn't be discussing him on here today. Chances are this will one day end up in those Netflix or Hulu documentaries together with all other surreal or cringeworthy incidents far in the future, and most of the time the optics wouldn't really be good then. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Martinevans123

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

---

Could someone please do something about the behavior of Martinevans123? This man is for some reason reverting my edits without reasonable arguments, let alone logical ones. Above all, on the discussion page of Talk:Martin Heidegger this man is publishing without any legitimate reason at all the location of my IP-adress. This had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and had more in common with intimidation. After that, he's following me to other articles and starts reverting my edits there, again without any form of logical reasoning. Very weird behavior that reminds me of stalking. Can an admin please do something about this?Cornelis Dopper (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would that be the IP address(es) that you plastered all over the history of the talk page by editing as an IP before creating a username? I'm pretty sure we can't blame Martin for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm assuming you are Special:Contributions/213.124.174.59 and Special:Contributions/89.205.133.144. Every time you edit as an IP you are publishing your IP address, and anyone can look up the location. As far as I can tell Martinevans123 was trying to determine if the second IP was the same editor as the first, which had been blocked earlier the same day for edit warring. This is a legitimate query as blocks apply to the person, not the account and it would have been block evasion. Here, you admit that you have in fact done that. It is also legitimate, if one sees perceives a user as being disruptive at one article, to check their contributions and follow up at a different article. That is not stalking or intimidation. I don't see anything actionable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• This complaint is without merit, and should be closed without action. There is a run-of-the-mill content dispute at the article talk page, about the use of superlatives. Martinevens123 has one position about it. A series of IPs expressed different positions, and then the account making the opening post here was created ([40]), and continued to express the same opinion. Martinevens123 raised the issue of the accounts likely being the same person, per WP:DUCK. And WP:IP edits are not anonymous. The "following to other articles" seems to be only to Ludwig Wittgenstein, which Martin has been editing since long before the new account was created: [41]. This is not stalking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-opening (Martinevans123)

I'm going to have to re-open this, because I've had to protect Ludwig Wittgenstein for clear and obvious edit-warring between Martinevans123 and Cornelis Dopper. I can't figure out who is right and who is wrong (if anyone), but I note that Martin has left his rationale on the talk page while Cornelis hasn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with waiting a bit longer in order to see what develops, before taking admin action. But this is getting to where it's not really a question of right or wrong about content, but rather about who is WP:HERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you are a long-time and obvious wikifriend of Martinevans (and vice versa). I don't think you should be the one taking any action in disputes where they are involved, whether it is closing a discussion here or protecting pages. No matter if your actions are correct or not, they may appear to be biased and should, per WP:INVOLVED, be avoided. Fram (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If there's an edit war between two people only, it seems inappropriate to have applied full protection, blocking everyone else from editing, because of two people. Moreover, demanding just one of those editors to "explain the rationale for your changes", and not the other editor, seems prejudiced. An edit war is an edit war. Both need to explain, get consensus, and stop.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In this specific instance, nobody else was involved in the dispute. Otherwise partially blocking both editors from the article would have been a suitable alternative. I've left a third opinion on the talk page which I'd suggest the two editors use as a compromise, otherwise they're going to have to seek dispute resolution elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, for you, that would have been an equally unsuitable alternative, per WP:INVOLVED. You should not be the admin on any situation where a wikifriend (like Martinevans) is involved, and should stick solely to commenting. This applies even when your actions are completely impartial, and even more when they seem prejudiced, like Bagumba says right above. Fram (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Fram and Bagumba, I'm sure you can both find something better to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went and looked at WP:INVOLVED, which defines involvement as "conflicts with an editor... , and disputes on topics...". Not conflicts of an editor one is friendly with, with other editors. As with all such things, this does include gray areas where judgment is required, and so it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement. But when no action (beyond commenting, and asking for discussion by the person who was not discussing) has been taken against the other party (who in this case is getting awfully close to not-here), there is hardly need for a commotion. (This is the comment that is cited above as a problem: seriously?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement." No, really? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, someone else who is buddies with Martinevans and felt the need to close this discussion and now to dismiss claims of involvedness. Shameful behaviour, but I guess you don't have anything better to do. Or at least not a better example to present. Good going. Fram (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You added to the closing statement twice. Gee, where could this confusion come from? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Where could this confusion come from? An apt question, indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection, which was a welcome relief, I must say. For "clear and obvious edit-warring"? If a claim fails verification in the source provided, I've always assumed it's valid to remove it. Similarly, if a source can be removed, as per WP:LEADCITE, I've always assumed it's not valid to simply restore it with a sarcastic edit summary. If this was edit warring, it was done with a polite invitation from me to discuss at the Talk page. With wikifriends like Ritchie, who needs enemies? But I'd better forgive you for not notifying me that you had re-opened this thread. Or was the OP meant to do that? I was getting close to taking Ludwig Wittgenstein (which I've been editing since 2011), off my watchlist, thanks to this. Might save you a job. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The appropriate picture --Tryptofish

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention during this morning's meeting. Are we doing a burma-shave or a funny picture for this one? Levivich 21:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Either one would be fine with me. You didn't miss anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Funny picture? I'd recommend Rabbit–duck. But, just like Ritchie, I'm not sure which is which. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm partial to the Spinning dancer, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, spinning. British television viewers might be reminded of the title sequence for Tales of the Unexpected... which is what this thread seems to be turning out to be. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to buzz kill and I'm sorry to pile-on, but Ritchie, after everything that happened with Diannaa (though I don't believe you acted as an admin in that incident), I really do think that, at the very least, you need to maintain some extra-good optics. Speaking for myself, I grant Gerda's RD requests via my talk page all the time (i.e. editing WP:ITN, an admin action). But I do that because those requests are uncontroversial.

By contrast, once, after I blocked Mathsci (via a report by Fram of all people as I recall, small vwold), I found out he was Gerda's friend, I never acted as an admin in his case again. And I never will. I'm saying all this as someone who isn't friends (but is friendly) with Martinevans123. Though I'd like to be, because he's fuckin' awesome! El_C 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I am deeply touched. Ritchie, the cheque is in the post. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Cornelis Dopper the same IP/SPA as above? This all seems rather silly from Dopper, and given edit summaries like this, I suspect they wont be here much longer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The first IP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule; the next IP made a total of 4 edits; after I asked if they were the same person I was told "You know damn well that we’re the same person". And then User:Cornelis Dopper miraculously appeared. I didn't actually ask if they were the same person.... perhaps you'd like to? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If not a buzz kill, then I guess I'm becoming a broken record, but given that the above is true, I feel the need to say again that the concerns about INVOLVED are awfully close to complaining about INVOLVED when the action was something routine like reverting a BLP violation or vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that we don't really have buzz kill here in the UK. But we do have the trusty old wet blanket. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Justanother2 - disruptive edits, ignoring attempts to talk on their talk page, leaving nasty messages on others' talk pages

Justanother2 (talk) has been engaged in making disruptive unsourced edits to Super Bowl LVI and, to a lesser extent, Super Bowl LVI halftime show. Multiple editors have had to revert his edits, and have tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he consistently deletes everything from his talk page (questions, invitations to discuss, warnings) without responding. He leaves edit summaries such as these:

• "If you have a beef or something go look up the myriad of reviews. Take this to a talk page, maybe this one for the halftime show." [42]
• "Learn how talk pages work; you continually run into arguments. You're a deletionist too." [43]
• "Can't most of you use talk pages? Don't remove this info; you're showing you don't understand sports reports or how stats function. Also you can find sources." [44]
• Do you even edit sports articles? It's not a production line; there are two or more admins editing on here now. I will ask them about this prob. Making a note of the rash of reverts on here, stop it!" [45]

I would like to invite Fynsta, Bluerules (talk), and Kinu ^t/_c to weigh in with their experience with Justanother2. As he is not taking advice from other editors, perhaps a warning from an administrator will get his attention. Back Bay Barry (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: Minor point; why are you copying and pasting the signatures of the editors you're pinging rather than using {{ping}} to do so? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ummm... because I didn't know that was the accepted way to do it? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: do I need to edit that with the ping function for them to be alerted? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: It's too late to do that now, but keep that in mind for the future. It's likely the users you did intend to ping, were pinged (because of how the notification system works). Just keep this in mind next time, as I know some users may not like it if you use their sig as a ping. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

yep I wasn't notified, only found this page by accident. So allow me to ping @Bluerules: and @Kinu:.Fynsta (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a recurrent editor on most Coldplay-related articles and this user has been a hassle there as well. They went to my Talk page and kept saying I was wrong all the time when their contributions rarely, if at all, improved the article. They just kept changing the way how the (revised, corrected and approved) text is worded to his personal preferences. In fact, one of their edits on Coldplay's discography page was outright disruptive and misleading. At first I thought I was just being over-protective of the band's articles since I created or revamped everything there except for the History section, but seeing how he got into a much worse debacle in Super Bowl LVI's article, there's clearly a pattern going on. --GustavoCza (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, that's exactly what this is. The user changes the wording and structure of the articles for the worse, and he does not stop even after repeated warnings. Going through their contributions history, nearly every edit seems to follow this pattern (and on top of that, using random nonsensical strings as edit summaries). Most of these were on small articles that weren't reverted, but should have been in my opinion. Fynsta (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur that this user's edits are unhelpful. On the Super Bowl LVI article, they made the second paragraph of the lead awkwardly-written and even added notes demanding that it not be changed back. They changed "quarterback Jared Goff suffered a decline in production, which led to tension between Goff and McVay" to "threw more interceptions than he had in 2016 and 2017, including 12 in 2018, 16 in 2019, and 13 in 2020, which led to tension between Goff and McVay" an unnecessary and overly-detailed bloat that makes the sentence awkward (which doesn't tell the full story either - Goff declined in general, not just with his turnover differential). They also restored outdated information on the Tony Boselli article about him not being inducted to the Pro Football Hall of Fame (which he was this year), while pledging to write an updated summary (which they never did). And their attitude is worse - when they created a talk page section to justify their Super Bowl edits, they accused me of having talk page full of complaints (even butting in to an unrelated discussion on my talk page to criticize me) and incorrectly thought edits were decided by polls. Bluerules (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Update apparently in retaliation for me filing this report, Justanother2 is now stalking my edits on other pages that he wasn't involved in before and reverting them; see this and this. Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Update He's now playing the victim on Coldplay's article as well, since I never really bought his facade, I'm rolling my eyes right now. --GustavoCza (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • More stalking he's now reverting me on more articles, see here and here. Back Bay Barry (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Continued stalking came to an edit I made minutes ago and reverted, purely to harass. Is there no one that can put a stop to this? He also immediately removed another warning placed on his talk page about his near-constant vandalism of the Coldplay article. It appears he is just trolling for a week straight. Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Justanother2's talk page contributions, I see some likely WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT issues. I'd attempted to engage with the editor on their talk page, but it was deleted (although they left a rather non sequitur response on my talk page in return). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this continues I will block Justanother2 indef. Please let me know if it continues and I don't seem to have noticed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to talk with User:Justanother2 user on my talk page, and now have a good idea of the problems people have been having trying to have a discussion with them. While I don't expect perfection (i.e. don't report him for being wrong about something), please let me know if this user's behavior doesn't improve (examples would be edit warring, insults, hounding, or ignoring consensus), and I will block them for disruptive editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Copperwidth is WP:!HERE

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

---

This user is just doing un-constructive editing, and isn't here to build a encyclopdia. From making pages such as Wikipedia:Entertainment theater that doesn't have a clear purpose, to making drawing pages like Wikipedia:KraftwerkASCII, and screwing up other's talk pages, such as this Special:Diff/1071140973. They have also made bad GAN nom's, and added protection templates, when it's not protected. This editor refuses to answer questions, and doesn't seem to want to learn.

Pinging @Blaze Wolf as they have had some interactions with this user.

Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

oh sorry... im just a newbie to wikipedia. :( COPPERwidth (💬) - (📋) 02:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Copperwidth, you will need to explain why you edited and wrote

{{explosivedog}}.

The edit was not necessary, as what Sea Cow stated. Sea Cow, it's not Blaze Wolf, it's me, (maybe a "ANI" stalker, we'll see)Severestorm28 02:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note the overlap in editing with TwentytwoAug, who created Template:Explosive Dog and shares a similar interest in creating questionable (at best) pages in Wiki-space. --Finngall ^talk 02:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's socks. Spoiler alert: so far I've found TwentytwoAug and BeeDoubleuroolerl554, but there's probably more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, those are the only ones that are obvious enough to really care about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think blocking is necessary or proportionate at this time, but I would urge User:Copperwidth to start small – focus on articles and think carefully about how constructive your edits are, because the amount of effort that it's currently taking to clean up after you means you're at serious risk of being shown the door. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: I've also had a few interactions with the user. However, I do agree that this user's edits are questionable at best (using my talk page as a sandbox for a template isn't acceptable, or nominating articles for GA when they clearly aren't ready). I'm not going to say much more since I really dislike ANI (usually involves a bunch of people arguing). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• User has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:TwentytwoAug. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for a block and rev-del

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

---

Could someone give 2603:6011:9400:B395:B031:4048:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a block and rev-del the edits they've made? They've been inserting unsourced rubbish into BLP's about how people are "Globalist Tyrants" then left a rather nasty threat on the talk page of the person that reverted them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, this kind of request is best handled at WP:AIV rather than on this board. In any case, I'm sure an administrator will take appropriate action soon. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the existence of AIV, I've been here a long time. In this case I brought the editor has posted this stuff over multiple weeks and some of the stuff they posted (like the talk page threats) probably needs rev-delling, AIV isn't really suited to doing anything except quick blocks of obvious vandals. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range. For future revision deletion requests, please take a look at WP:REVDELREQUEST. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 4

Special:Contributions/219.77.210.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 14 August in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a relatively benign IP range. Does this guy have a filing on WP:LTA? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No,but this user have a filing on zh:WP:LTA.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 14:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/1.36.224.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 7 June in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/42.2.137.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 14 November in last year (only 42.2.137.41 is not),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ping User:El C.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year, all. El_C 09:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/219.77.217.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 9 January in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year. Heh, you might need a dedicated thread, MCC214. ;) El_C 15:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/220.246.194.0/23,this LTA use this IP range after 13 July in last year (only 220.246.195.29 is not),zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also,please protect Backpacking (hiking),start at 20 in last month,spam and DE.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done and Done. El_C 13:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user removing split template after voting delete on Neo-Nazism article

• CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neo-Nazism in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neo-Nazism in India was created as a bold WP:SPLIT from Neo-Nazism as the parent article was 190KB (much more than 100KB WP:SIZERULE), the split is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India.

A Template:Split was added by me on top of Neo-Nazism with a link to the discussion. CapnJackSp (recently became extended confirmed) who had voted Delete in the discussion is now edit warring and removing the split template from the article Neo-Nazism, [46]. Even though the discussion is set to be closed tomorrow. He is refusing to restore the split template and arguing that it is not split discussion but AfD. This is an obvious attempt to disrupt the AfD by a user who has voted Delete.

I have already, tried to reason with him on the article talk page [47] and his talk page [48] [49].

I am posting here to request an admin to restore the Split template [50] on the article Neo-Nazism till the time the discussion is open. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat, you have not yet explained on the talk page why there should be two separate templates. You opened up this ANI discussion after making one message for resolving the issues. The messages on my talk page were warning templates, which can hardly be counted as dispute resolution attempts.

Even though you split the article without discussion, I am still willing to entertain your incorrect usage of template at Neo-Nazi#India for the sake of resolution, as I pointed out earlier. However, I dont see why/how you can justify a duplicate usage of an incorrect template (assuming we overlook the first usage). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

PS:Would like to add that contrary to the implication, a split template already exists on the page. My edit was to remove the duplicate temple. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the edit [51] and the current version, in which User:CapnJackSp has removed the split template from the page.Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, contrary to the implication, I have removed "a" template (out of two), not "the" template. Just to clarify. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As seen in the diff [52], you have removed it inappropriately and continually refused to restore it from the top of the page, giving specious reason. Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion already, I think it is best left to the admins. If you are disputing my statement, then any admin can check that the template is in place at Neo-Nazism#India and has not been touched at all. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This seems unequivocal. Special:Diff/1071392341 is where User:Venkat TL added 2 notices instead of 1. Special:Permalink/1072195018#India is the version edited by User:CapnJackSp mentioned above, and there's a split notice right there. This has already been acknowledged by Special:Diff/1072255476. Nothing to restore, therefore.

  If the problem is a 190KiB article, choosing to split on the section that has a mere 4 sentences, and in fact is one of the smallest subsections of the article, seems a weak approach to the problem.

  Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the key consideration in article length is prose size, not overall size. The neo-nazism article comes in at 73kB, so longer than perhaps ideal, but not a behemoth by any means. I'm not sure if there is any need for action now, the question of whether and how the neo-nazism article can/should be split is a discussion that can occur no matter where exactly a split tag is located on an article. It would be more productive to focus on the actual discussion than a discussion about the discussion that would have little impact either way. CMD (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Uncle G and @Chipmunkdavis Thanks for the comments and the correction on prose size. Noted. Do you think it was justified to remove the template:Split from the top of the article while the discussion was ongoing? and then edit warring to remove it? Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  We may have guidance regarding tag placement in this situation, but I am unfamiliar with it. I would say looking at it now that actions both ways were done in good faith, and that the important factor is that discussion is ongoing. CMD (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ginguladin

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

---

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

This editor has been edit warring against at least five other editors over at Gehraiyaan (film) for a couple of days now, trying to add in a rather poorly written, unencyclopaedic synopsis of the film. After I gave them a 3rr warning (their second edit warring warning, after an earlier ew-soft) they have made their first edit to a page other than the Gehraiyaan (film) page, this addition to my talk page. Indef NOTHERE block time? Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite block. The filter log shows more problems. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

IP user 124.104.57.209

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

---

IP User 124.104.57.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has for many months now engaged in edit warring, pushing his WP:POV in many political articles. He has changed ideologies and positions despite established consesus, has been reverted multiple times by several editors, and has engaged in breaking WP:3RR. He has removed sourced information to instead add in his own opinion of an article. Despite reverts by many editors, he has insisted in adding in his own info, and toggles of what an he believes the article should look like without sources too. Definitely worrying with a user trying to push his narrative in too many articles to keep up with for many editors. Not only that but he has also been WP:HARASS several editors.

Honestly he has broken all of the things above too many times, however I have added some of his violations here. I recommend an administrator to look at all his records if this is not enough. In my opinion a permanent block would be the best solution after everything he has been doing. He has also receives multiple warnings by several editors and been blocked from editing certain pages due to his edit warring. [53] [54]

WP:HARASS against editor Vif, [55], against Vacant [56], against me[57], against Shadow [58], against Ben [59]

Broken WP:3RR several times, refusing to discuss, adding unsourced or WP:OR content and reverting back against multiple editors: [60] (6 times) on that page), [61] (4 times on that page), [62] (4 times on that page), [63] (6 times on that page) and these are just some examples.

WP:POV pushes, unsourced too: [64] (edit denied), [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], and there many many more.

If someone can put an end to this, it would be appreciated. One of the worst IP users I have seen and he has basically been waging an edit war against all editors to push his point of view. BastianMAT (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You should request an administrator's intervention to block the IP user. It can be WP:AIV. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ignored [[70]] Shadow4dark (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They're now getting a month off since they had a week off earlier this month. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Made in Baltics

I am not sure what to do, I tried to merge content into one article, but it got taken back out and moved around to other articles. Seems there was draft articles, moved and stuff. I found it all rather odd, felt as if user PauliineMitt was claiming ownership of the articles! I really don't see the point of all the splitting of content for such little of it. I don't want to get into trouble, maybe someone else can look into it? Govvy (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there was an issue with this, guess admins think there is nothing... :/ Govvy (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an issue here with PauliineMitt's editing. This editor created her account in 2020, so is not new, but at this point is editing entirely about the record label Made in Baltics; she's created that article and also List of Made In Baltics artists and List of Made In Baltics singles, has moved the label article back to mainspace after it was draftified, and I think recreated the singles article a second time in mainspace after it was draftified (there's been a histmerge). Both lists have more sources than the main article, but I haven't looked at their quality and the label article could definitely use more references. There's a section on Talk:Made in Baltics but so far as I can see, PauliineMitt is edit warring without discussing, except via edit summaries. Hopefully she'll respond to my ping at the talk page, and maybe there's some wikiproject guideline recommending separate lists? But the label was only founded in 2018, so unless there is such a guideline, I don't believe there should be any certainty that the lists must be separate. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I've sent List of Made In Baltics artists to AfD. I don't see the need for that article, seems covered enough with the main one. I still feel the other article with the singles on needs to be merged. I am going to avoid doing that myself. I've been in enough trouble recently over another article. PauliineMitt Hasn't responded to my question yesterday or even responded on ANI here, so I am a bit myth'ed. Govvy (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Is there a problem with the Made In Baltics page having only one editor, should there be more? And is it really bad if the List of Made In Baltics singles and List of Made In Baltics artists is in separate pages? I didn't want to put them both on the main page. Is there anything that I could do to improve the pages Govvy ? I would really like if the two lists could be separately from the main page. PauliineMitt (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: The problem lies in rejecting Govvy's edits simply because it's another editor seeking to edit the page (that's a violation of one of our basic principles, which we refer to as ownership). We work collaboratively; that can be messy, but we're expected to be ready to defend our viewpoints on how an article should be written when someone disagrees. I appreciate your responding here and at Talk:Made in Baltics, and pinging in both places. But so far as I can see, other than a comparison at the talk page to Sub Pop, an article with far more references and on a label founded in 1986 rather than only in 2018, you've offered no reasoning except your personal preference. In fact, other than a question on the article talk page that you removed two weeks later, that appears to be your first talk page edit, and I don't see any edits to user talk, including no response to two draftifications, to an AfC denial of Draft:Made In Baltics, or to an inquiry by 331dot about possible conflict of interest or undeclared paid editing. Instead you appear to have circumvented both draftifications by recreating the articles in mainspace, using different capitalization to do so for the Made in Baltics article and requiring a history merge by Primefac for List of Made In Baltics singles. I'm aware that new editors are by definition single-purpose when they first start, I know our usage of "notable" and sourcing requirements take a bit of getting used to, I am probably one of the least hostile of long-term Wikipedia editors toward articles on businesses, and I note the article on the label has also been edited by Uuskasutaja, whose user name, Google tells me, means "new user" in Estonian, but the non-communication, the recreation of the articles, the edit warring with Govvy, and the undeclared conflict of interest if there is one are all violations of our policies in addition to the lack of collegiality implicit in the assumption that the article can be the way its creator wants it to be just because. (I apologize for all the links; I want to be open about the basis for my statements to someone who hasn't been here that long.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is off-wiki evidence that convincingly shows Pauliine Mitt is an undeclared paid editor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

She had been warned before but didn't reply. I gave her a second-level warning and asked her not to do further edits until she responds. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I understand all of your statements and I agree, it's just that I haven't made a lot of edits here, so I don't know all of the functions and what is needed for a good Wikipedia page. My main goal is to create a acceptable page for Made In Baltics. But as I am one of the only people doing it, with the lack of experience, it can have a lot of faults in it. But I definitely would like to improve.PauliineMitt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: The reason I didn't reply before, was that I didn't know how to do it and I didn't know how to see the comments, it was all quite messy for me and I am very sorry, but it wasn't intentional.PauliineMitt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: You should have a look at WP:CONTENTFORK, Made in Baltics isn't a big article, it's a rather small article really. You only need separate pages when the need arises or under certain conditions. On a side note, I noticed the Estonian wiki page but couldn't work out how to add it to the English version. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: So would this help, if I'd just put the Made In Baltics singles and Made In Baltics artists pages both on the Made In Baltics main page and then I could put the references on the main page as well, so it would have more references and there would be no other pages, other than the Made In Baltics main Wiki page? PauliineMitt (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: Originally yes, you shouldn't mess about with the AfD article, that would need closing first. Moving all those pages around was a major red flag and one reason why I posted in this forum. However this conversation should continue at Talk:Made in Baltics and this ANI should really probably be closed now thank you. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: You must respond to the messages on your talk page about paid editing before making any further edits to the various Made in Baltics pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Yes, I saw the message now and responded to it as well.PauliineMitt (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Uhhh. I was unaware of this whole thing here at ANI and nominated the article for deletion. Did I mess up by nominating this or is everything good? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  In retrospect, deletion is probably the best resolution. I'm still unclear as to whether the creator fits the paid editor definition used by Wikipedia (boy, that definition and the warning notices need a lot of work to improve clarity). Pauliine Mitt knows more than the rest of us as to appropriate references, as she has inside knowledge, so if she can't get the article up to snuff, I doubt any of the rest of us can. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen account compromise?

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

---

User:7&6=thirteen's account seems to have been compromised, looking at the account's most recent edit. This is concerning, because it looks like this is a long-term abuser compromising a long-term contributor's account. What to do? -- The Anome (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They were reporting an issue on Oshwah's talk page, I believe. I saw the edit summary and was concerned myself, but the edit on Oshwah's talk page is already reverted and revdelled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of the abusive content in the edit comment is really odd; why quote this there? -- The Anome (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume to get an immediate response, so the first admin to see it would know it was an immediate block and didn't need any discussion or investigation. A link to a diff might have been better, but not as eye catching. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To get a swift result perhaps? No disrespect to you, Anome, but was that one edit really worth a 31-hour block, or is there something I'm missing? (And I say that as someone who's about far off 13's Christmas card list as it's probably possible to be!) SN54129 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it was an excess of caution, in case 7&6=thirteen's account was compromised. Better safe than sorry. Looking at their block log, this may actually be their second compromised account block in error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! Odd though, as WP:COMPROMISED is pretty clear on actions to be taken, and short term blocks don't enter into it anywhere... SN54129 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The block log gives no indication of a compromised account, instead citing "disruptive editing." And there's been no block notice or explanation on 13's talk page. Some tidying up to do by Anome I think.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sokay, Ritchie333's got the whitewash out  ;) SN54129 18:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec x lots) Having known 7&6=13 for some years, the writing style of the redacted post looks nothing like anything he would write, and I suspect the account is compromised. I've upped the block to indefinite with talk page access disabled and advised them to contact the stewards (which I believe is the correct policy but I don't often do this and don't have the Checkuser Magic 8-Ball that would help). I've left a note that if any checkuser can confirm the account is not compromised, they are free to lift the block without consulting me if they so wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Did they make the original edit at User talk:Oshwah, or did they just copy it in a report here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Dumb move from a "let's not shine light on it more" perspective but that's what happened. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: To be clear, Thriteen copied the content and name of the user that left it (albeit censoring some parts). An odd choice, considering Thirteen's experience, but it happens. I think a trout for both Thirteen and Anome are in order. Aside from that, I don't think there is anything else to be added here. Isabelle ^🔔 18:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Not anywhere near compromised. Unblocked. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks to Primefac for re-opening this, and thanks also for unblocking so quickly.; As young say there might, indeed, be more to discuss. Starting with a few gentle words directed at The Anome for leaping to the conclusion that a long term account had been compromised, calling one post at ANI disruptive, and then blocking without warning or any other notice, in breach of policy on both blocking and compromised accounts. D'oh! A small portion of fish for your tea tonight, Anome! SN54129 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll repost here what I put on 7&6=13's talk page:

• At the time I saw the ANI thread, the post there had already been redacted.
• I saw a reference to "posting on Oshwah's talk page", but no indication 7&6=13 had edited there, so didn't understand what that was about
• I noticed the account was blocked for "disruptive editing", which was inappropriate either for a compromised account (which should be indef blocked pending review) or a not-at-all-compromised account (which mandates a discussion and reasoning)
• Having looked at the redacted post (which admins can do), it looked so completely out of character for anything 7&6=13 would write, that I had reasonable enough suspicion that the account was compromised, and blocked as a safety precaution, immediately broadcasting out to any checkuser who was about to confirm and reverse the block if necessary.
• A checkuser promptly turned up, concluding there was no compromised account, and unblocked - as I had already asked to happen if that were the case.
• Tea and biscuits

In summary, I waded into something without full accumulation of the facts and jumped to a wrong conclusion. Although I didn't explicitly say it, I didn't particularly want to block the guy who encouraged me to start contributing to WP:DYK about 9 years ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It also looks like you failed to disable 13's talk page access as you had intended to do, which was for the best in the end:)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder who that reminds me of? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What's that got to do with you failing to pull TPA, Ritchie333 :p SN54129 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of clarity, I put a 31-hour temporary block on the account solely to give time for this discussion to occur, so that we didn't race to a conclusion without proper consideration,. It sounds like the checkuser has taken a proper look and removed any confusion, so everything ended well. -- The Anome (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus here, The Anome is most certainly not that "all ended well"; much discussion of trout, following overreaction in the first place. Having said that, your message to 13 just now was very nice and something that many admins would "forget" to do. Thanks! SN54129 21:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 49.199.143.248

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

---

See this edit threatening "legal action". — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

GenoV84's accusations, false statements in discussions, and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

• LGBT in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report by Santasa99

GenoV84 has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing, edit-warring ([73], [74], [75], [76]). Being on multiple ANI's for biting, casting aspersions with especially troubling being presentation of false claims in personal attacks (warned [77], [78], here they were called out for false personal attacks [79], [80] by User:LindsayH in this diff reiterated by User:El_C, then for attempt to engineer sanctions for opposing user [81]) over the past and this year, and earlier during the 2018. They showed disregard for community consensus (as reported in this ANI User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s) in the middle of which GenoV84 supposedly retired, but they were warned [82], they were called out for "gaming the system", "bludgeoning", "writing manifesto", "incivility", "hypocrisy", even being "anti-Muslim", all in that ANI by the community of at least half a dozen or more editors, and then on another again here (when they reported opposing editor for removing warnings from their user TP [83], but they themselves were removing all warnings and block notices from their user TP, and explained by User:Justarandomamerican that editors are allowed to do that and warned for not assuming good faith, again, [84], [85] by User:TheDragonFire300 and [86] by User:Bishonen, and again month later they filed a report [87], [88] on the same editor and were warned [89] by User:Fences and windows). They often disregard community standards on issues such as OWN, OR & SYNTH interpretation and usage of sources, the bad faith assumption ([90], [91] report by User:Vaticidalprophet, also noted by [92] User:Apaugasma). From my personal experience - main accusations and false claims: ...if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals..., by explicitly stating that he doesn't care... i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content - I posted my raw intent on very specific matters concerning eventual changes in problematic sentence [93], no more no less, I didn't debated, threaten, disregard opinions - "deficiencies and misdemeanors" on my part and "unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content" should be explained; How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, only we don't require evidence to remove unrefed/unsourced material, and we always expect to collaborate; ...you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made, not one proposal or solution was offered, only more of the same, and "refusal to get the point" and provide asked ref; Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times,..., only we don't require reliable source to remove unrefed/unsourced material, they didn't provide ref for contested material; If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes..., they were not, they were just bunch of source, meaningless quotes, non of which contain required ref for contested material or justify accusations; then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users,..., more evasion and aspersion; I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly., they did constantly spread aspersions, and the rest should be easy to prove and justify; I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, ...no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially ...that this entire discussion and edit war that you started, evasion, untrue due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion, aspersions w/o evidence? Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, not upset just contesting unrefed material; depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users, yet, it was GenoV84 who started to revert and broke 3RR as well, actually first, insults and attack should be easy to prove; I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for., evidence? he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, evasion, untrue; Timeline for the TP exchange: GenoV84 reverted me on my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, disregarding good faith, [94], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [95], [96], with additional comment [97]. VenusFeuerFalle & GenoV84 has established contact via e-mail two weeks ago, 6-7 days before our first encounter, as evident from this exchange on GenoV84 TP [98] between 2-3 Feb.2022; VenusFeuerFalle replaced GenoV84 in reverting me, so I stepped on that mine foolishly. I initiated discussion [99]; GenoV84 responds [100]; I followed [101]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references and without offering what I asked [102]+[103]; nevertheless, I checked them and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found in them [104]+[105]; now they were starting to get angry at me and to write essays with lots of wikilayering [106]; I tried to explain [107]+[108]; they started with a new round [109]; I asked them to stop with accusations [110]; they started asking in circles [111] and I replied again [112]+[113]; they simply didn't want to get the point and repeated again [114]; I was a bit annoyed at this point [115] but I pinged other two editors and asked [116]; one replied Your edits today on this article have violated WP:3RR. Could you please explain why you have ignored that policy? — Manticore; then the other [117] not exactly clear what they said; I was baffled and responded with [118], I was asked about my proposal but I wasn't sure what [119]; so I said that [120]; editor said they can try to fix English [121]; I wasn't sure why they debating when reference is my main request [122]; they tried again but made thing worse [123]+[124], which isn't the point after all, both editors were simply evading to provide reference which was my main request ! Then, GenoV84 posted essay of 10 thousands bytes [125]! Sorry for the long report, even though it could have been longer.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Response by GenoV84

intractable, long term history of POV pushing.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users (@VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore:), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink. In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently. You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes. So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.) paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. Evidence with reliable sources and diffs that directly indicate your disruptive edits on the article LGBT in Islam, along with your reiterated violation of WP:3RR, have already been provided by me and the user @Manticore:, both here and in the article's Talk page. And no, responding to your incessant, passive-aggressive comments and offensive remarks about me and the editors @VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore: in the most polite way possible is not harassment: it's called manners. Did you manage to behave that way and treat other users like trash for 14 years without ever getting blocked or reprimanded by an admin? Impressive.... and depressing. Despite your attempts to repeatedly inflame the dispute resolution with uncivil comments and personal attacks by inciting me and the aforementioned users to push the boundaries even further, as you just did with your latest comment (You really need to hit the brakes a little bit), I'm pretty sure that I have already expressed my opinion far too well, both here and on the article's Talk page, and there's no need for me to restate my argument ad infinitum. I also took the initiative to request a third opinion from users that weren't involved in the dispute resolution in order to find a constructive way to reach consensus together, but so far nothing seems to work. I invited other users and editors to join the discussion and express their own viewpoint both on WP:AN3 and the article's Talk page, if they wish. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 ([126]; [127]; [128]; [129]; [130]; [131]). There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies. Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus: Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty"; I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word. How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? As if this entire dispute resolution over a simple, innocuous wikilink wasn't entirely avoidable if only the user that opened this report had tried to engage with me and other editors in a more polite, respectful way from the beginning, in accordance with the policies WP:Civility and WP:KEEPCOOL, as I suggested him many times during the dispute resolution, he disregarded all my advices and continued to behave in the same disturbing, disrespectful way (Oh, sorry Aristotle, i wasn't aware you go digital now.). Furthermore, Santasa99 has blatantly, explicitly DENIED that he was WARNED by the admin EdJohnston just yesterday following the closure of the report on his edit-warring [132], which can still be found at WP:AN3, with the following phrase on the article's Talk page: EdJohnston never said that [133]. GenoV84 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) After all this mess, who is the one making accusations, insulting other users with personal attacks multiple times, treating them with disrespect and offensive remarks after being asked to stop multiple times, persistent lying despite the provided diffs and evidence with the continuous dismissal of all the diffs and evidence, accusing them of bad faith and WP:NOTHERE? GenoV84 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) But the user Santasa99 didn't stop there. He continued to post comments and replies on WP:AN3 after the admin EdJohnston had already closed Manticore's report on him for edit-warring, knowingly (Thanks @EdJohnston:, I am well aware of what I shouldn't do [134]), insinuating that me and editor VenusFeuerFalle had a conversation via email regarding the article LGBT in Islam because I gave them an email address to reach me on my Talk page weeks ago (I was, apparently, up against two editors editing in concert, which I suspect from this short but worrisome exchange User_talk:GenoV84#Discord? between 2 and 3 Feb 2022, and manner in which they took turn in reverting me. [135]). In the same fashion, the user Santasa99 stated on the article's Talk page that he won't let me go while the discussion is still ongoing (Are you now refuse to work with me, do you think that somehow goal is accomplished and now you don't need to explain to me anything? [136]). See and judge for yourselves, who is the editor in bad faith and casting aspersions here (WP:ASPERSIONS: It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.). I wish that I didn't have to do this and write this papyrus above, but if other editors and admins need to see the full story, there it is. For what? A wikilink. GenoV84 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) References

Wow, well, this is basically unreadable. El_C 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please El_C, work with us, and let's try to make this as simplest as possible. My report is long to begin with, but GenoV84 reply is exactly what makes this case important.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment (to break from walls of text)

I was long past content issue problem, and my intention was to present pattern of continuous breach of behavioral policies and guidelines - any editor with a history of bad faith assumption, false representations of other editors' discussions, and willingness to wage a crusade over simplest matter, as apparent from ANI, User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s), case about racist userbox three time deleted by community, three times re-created by GenoV84, or from disruptive editing on the article Criticism of Muhammad edit-warring and discussing over edit-summary [137], which eventually earned them a block; and now, with all this over removal of one word, "Islamic", from absurd, provocative and deceptive phrasal construction "Islamic death penalty", created without references, should be signal that editor is not here to build the project.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I've amended the collapse title that read Bludgeoning evasive counter-report and wikilawyering by GenoV84 into Response by GenoV84. Even if the former is so —I haven't read these very lengthy exchanges and am unlikely to do so in their current state (doubtful someone else would, but who knows, I guess)— I don't understand why you'd think it okay for an involved user such as yourself (the OP) to frame the collapse title like that, in such a favourable way, to you. There's a serious lack of clue in doing that, I'm sorry to say, again, regardless of the claim's factual veracity. You should not be clerking a discussion in which you are involved, period. El_C 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, this is a poor summary. A diff from 2018 is beyond Stale. El_C 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I concur and totally accept your remarks, it was risky and not neutral, but your first reaction was clear that in previous state it would probably discourage any editor from reading through it, let alone attempt to curate it and make it less repellent. I worry that my report is too long, but I hoped that at least was organized in usual, practical manner (my experience on filing ANI is based on what I observed only, it is possible that I tried ANI before but I don't remember.) It would be shame if it fails because either my report was unreadable or because GenoV84 respond made it repellent more than it should be. As for the stale diff, I used it only to illustrate how long this patter persists, my experience is much deeper than any previous editors' presentations showed in those old diff's and cases. How many should I present here is dilemma of inexperienced editor filing the report.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Compile the three most egregious recent diffs, with brief summaries if needed. El_C 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, I will take diff's my first three TP discussion posts and juxtapose it with GenoV's replies. Since their replies are always longish and contain enough evidence I will tq it with diff's. Thanks and thanks again. (Let's see how it looks in 10-20 min.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I initiated discussion [138]; GenoV84 responds [139]; I followed with a second attempt [140]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references[141]+[142] and without offering what I asked exact place in sources; nevertheless, I checked the sources and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found [143]+[144]; now they replied with a long post with lots of wikilayering evasive explanations and aspersions [145]; I tried to explain [146]+[147]; they started with a new round [148]; I asked them to stop with accusations [149]; they started asking in circles [150].

Now, I said I will tq specific lines, but I will leave that for separate post if specifically requested, so that we keep it simple this time. I think that these diff's are most interesting because this is me, cool as Antarctica in July, trying to initiate TP discussion and get reference for specific part of the article (lede), and the answers I was getting. There are worse things hurled at me later on, and while I was too getting more blunt later on, there is no justifications for the things said and how they were said in GenoV's answers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And, it's not irrelevant that on our first encounter GenoV84 reverted my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, completely disregarding good faith, [151], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [152], [153], with additional comment [154]. That was really unexpected.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I'm not seeing anything egregious in those exchanges. Looks like a content dispute that could use further dispute resolution. Spirited debate is allowed. GenoV84, on Feb 11, you removed Santasa99's comment from Talk:LGBT in Islam ( diff). This was by accident, I presume...? El_C 12:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, there's another paragraph. I don't understand why you're making this so complicated, Santasa99. Too much redudant material, still. Anyway: //looking. El_C 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a spirited when you get this you should try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggresively. when you are calm and there is no lashing out on other users aggresively just because you ask for reference in absolutely calm, even cold manner.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I hate being here, I never wanted to use these channels.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a diff, so I have zero context, but I don't think it matters at this point, anyway. El_C 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay...? El_C 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's diff 196 - I hate being here because it means something went wrong, and that's why I have little experience, and why my posts are "complicated".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And you expected me to just remember? And you don't link it directly now because...? Doesn't matter, I'm not gonna look at it. If you can't bother making this convenient for me, I'm just gonna disengage and you can try seeking further assistance from someone else. El_C 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, El_C, I don't expect much anyway, but you said be concise give me three diff's, which I posted, but than you missed entire sentence in it where the editor literally accuses me of being xy. I am not sure what else could I do.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are required to read it at all, let alone carefully, but I provided those diff's and they contain some pretty inappropriate attitude.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, no, you didn't. You posted 17 diffs. El_C 14:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

:-) you got me there, hah it's really that much, but how else you can show what happened in this kind of report, where behavior is examined, I mean if I post their diff you are left without "why" they said "you are angry, cool down , don't lash out and don't be aggressive" - so, in this case it really felt that it was needed to be in the format "I said/they said". I wanted to remove this report from the content issue, so it is a case of two editors and their behavior.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Warned. GenoV84, don't mis-use user warning templates during content disputes. Don't label a content dispute as "vandalism," disrutpive," or "censorship." If you do this again, you will be sanctioned. Both of you: find a dispute resolution request that works for you, like WP:3O, an WP:RFC, or posting to WP:RSN, and take a break from one another. It's too much and it's getting neither of you anywhere. I've already warned Santasa99 above, so hopefully, that would be the end of it. El_C 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But you already warned them once in July over the same thing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So now it's twice, I guess. El_C 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@El_C, I accept the warning and agree with your suggestions regarding the proper dispute resolution. To answer your first question, I'm afraid that my revisions and Santasa99's revisions overlapped while saving the respective replies; it happened unintentionally by accident.

However, I had already requested a WP:3O at the very beginning of the dispute resolution; except for the intervention of other editors mentioned earlier, which don't seem to be interested in this discussion anymore, nobody else has joined the discussion yet, and I explicitly invited other users to join in the article's Talk page.

From my perspective, especially considering Santasa99's disturbing and concerning conduct towards me and other editors, I think that both of us should WP:DISENGAGE and let other users step in, because it's clear that this entire mess about something so trivial and innocuous as wikilink is not worth the effort. GenoV84 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not the break! That's not the break! El_C 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What a ... :-))) , I was thinking to Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment about DRN

I have closed a request for dispute resolution at DRN because this case is also pending, and DRN does not consider any dispute that is pending in another conduct or content forum. If User:GenoV84 and User:Santasa99 agree to close this dispute in order to file another request at DRN, I will accept a request for moderated discussion if all of the parties are notified and a majority agree to moderated discussion. I will advise the parties that I will insist that parties at DRN be concise, and may hat walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it needs to be formally closed, many of these ANI's gets archived without ever being formally closed - the important thing was that it was concluded by El_C's warning?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Please see my reply above regarding the user Santasa99's disturbing behavior, stalking on my Talk page and my past activities on Wikipedia, reiterated uncivil, disrespectful conduct along with several insults and personal attacks towards me and other editors involved in the discussion on Talk:LGBT in Islam#Public opinion among Muslims, not to mention the blatant untruths and character assassination exposed at WP:ANI, WP:AN3, and Talk:LGBT in Islam#Public opinion among Muslims by me and two admins (he has already been warned twice). I don't think there's much else to say here; Santasa99's disturbing behavior speaks louder than any report could ever do. I'm not interested in that pointless discussion anymore, and I still consider WP:DISENGAGE to be the best decision for both parties involved. GenoV84 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously!?!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, GenoV84 said they wanted to disengage, you said you have abandoned the page. Earlier, I had said: Both of you: find a dispute resolution request that works for you, like WP:3O, an WP:RFC, or posting to WP:RSN. Any of these WP:DRRs could have been used with minimal if any engagement from GenoV84. But instead you pick WP:DRN, where engagement is at an uttermost, to un-abandon the page with? At this point, I'm inclined to just topic ban you from the entire WP:GENSEX topic area. I simply do not believe that you are clueful enough to handle its pitfalls at this time. *Sigh* El_C 06:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I really believe that would be unfair, not to mention it is not my topic area, and the reason has nothing to do with WP:GENSEX. I changed my mind that's legitimate attitude (GenoV retired from editing less then two months ago after some "Islamophobic" remarks in ANI filed against him for three time re-created of deleted hate-mongering userbox), but I let things cool down and resorted to DRN because, after all, GenoV vehemently defended removal of word "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty", so I don't see how would avoiding him be helpful to resolve issue. Most importantly, I have never once been uncivil with him, I never included part of the text or wrote entirely personal attack in post, and just because GenoV is unable to post one paragraph without such attacks and personal innuendo without one diff of evidence, shouldn't be the reason for me to pay the price, even though I filed lousy formatted report here, or collapsed statements, or wasn't formatting my report in summarized readable fashion, etc. If GenosV last moves were OK, than I am clearly on the wron place in the wrong time.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I'm sorry to say, but nothing of the various, totally un-evidenced things (i.e. without one diff of evidence) you say above convinces me that you currently possess the competence to edit GENSEX pages like LGBT in Islam. I don't know what else to tell you. El_C 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not editing GENSEX, and if you could find 10 such edits in 2 or 3 that topic articles in my 14 years I will gladly accept sanctions. My engagement with LGBT in Islam has nothing to do with a topic area as such, it was attempt to change one word in what is awkwardly and provocatively constructed phrase in the article, and if that one thing that has nothing to do with a topic area GENSEX warrants topic ban, no less, than go ahead. But I feel that topic banning me on my ANI report on editor's personal attacks and false accusations without evidence, which continued with this last outburst, for my attempt to return to resolve content issue, is unfair, to say the least.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what removal of one word "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty" had to do with competence to edit GENSEX?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I could WP:ABAN you from the page rather than WP:TBAN you from the topic area, but if you don't edit the topic area, anyway, I don't see how it'd make any difference. But sure, I guess. You keep mentioning 'fairness,' which can become a pretty subjective thing. But your actions, not knowing when to drop the WP:STICK, that's an objective fact. El_C 07:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Minute waited. The page is under the GENSEX DS. You are failing the competence threshold on that page. El_C 07:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't drag this out any longer. Closure pending. El_C 07:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It makes all the difference, because I am not sure where did I failed in competence on that page (let alone topic). Is it because I said something which disrupted editing there, or did I said something in Talk Page there which is, let's say any worse then opposing editor(s), or something which I can't comprehend? It makes the difference, if nothing, it could be lesson for the future.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That has been discussed at length already. Now would you please let me close this report so I could wrap everything up? El_C 07:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

IP without sufficient competence in English.

IP 2804:389:A08C:4B:41AA:CB5E:3049:972D has been editing articles about a number of previous Olympic Games, but has demonstrated a serious lack of competence in English. I have twice reverted edits to one of those articles, but these edits this morning to another article again show that the editor's English isn't good enough for editing this Wikipedia. I have given one warning, but it appears that further action is necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to do gnomish updates also. There's potentially other options. Let's see their response.—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I know some people like to think everybody can contribute to the English Wikipedia no matter how insufficient their English and it's everybody else's responsibility to copyedit what they write. But this case is as if I should contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia on the strength of one year of Spanish studies in high school. There has to be some limit to how much we demand of others in the way of assistance. I have blocked the user and their /64 range per WP:CIR. Thank you for reporting, David Biddulph. Bishonen | tålk 11:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC).

• Sorry, Bagumba, I had already blocked when I saw your post, or I would have waited. I stand by the block, though. If they appeal the block, or reply in any way, on their page, it can be moved here. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC).
  • I saw this entry and assumed it wasn’t fair that one would get sanctioned because of their proficiency (or lack of it) In what is arguably the most difficult languages to grasp. But having seen Bishonen's rationale, I totally agree. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Symon777

Symon777 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring with me about the articles Eskiarab and Boʻrbaliq (two places in Uzbekistan). They consider these articles their own property (see [155], and respond on comments by myself ([156]) and by Ost316 ([157]) with profanities (blanked afterwards, including the comments by Ost316 and myself. It is likely that the accounts BioCaliforniauz (talk · contribs) and Salman unity (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person, see [158] and [159]. I have no hope that this user will engage in civil discussion. Markussep ^Talk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the problems described by Markussep, Symon777 has repeatedly removed this section from this page, and after that failed because it was repeatedly restored, changed it to make it appear to be a report about Markussep. I have blocked the account for 48 hours. It is up to Symon777 now to decide whether to start editing collaboratively when the block is over, or to carry on in the same way, in which case an indefinite block will be reasonable. I had already noticed Salman unity, but not BioCaliforniauz. I'll look at them and see whether anything should be done about those accounts. JBW (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty certain that the accounts Salman unity and Symon777 are connected, either as the same person or two people acting together. I'll drop a warning note. However, I don't see enough evidence to conclude that BioCaliforniauz is related, and there are enough differences to make it seem unlikely that it's actually the same person. JBW (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, the reason I suspected BioCaliforniauz was that they signed as Symon777 here. Markussep ^Talk 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Markussep, stupidly, I didn't think to look at the signature when I checked earlier. That throws a very different light on things. I don't have time now to follow this up, but I'll try to look at it again when I do have time. Thanks for providing the information. JBW (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NeverTry4Me issue

I strongly condemn the block of@NeverTry4Me: . He is a reputed editor with so many years of experience. Admins should not misuse their power. I ask the blocked user to defend his diffs here. I support you and thanks for your valuable contribution.TOAARN23 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Lololol. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NeverTry4Me, let me try a little bit of helpful guidance: this thing you're doing right now is transparent, and all it will do is make it harder for you ever to be unblocked in the future. It is really too bad that you didn't try harder to understand what El_C and others were telling you -- I get that English isn't your native language, but that means you should have spent much more time asking for clarification of what other people were saying and much less time arguing. Your best bet for being unblocked is (1) stop creating alternate accounts or editing logged out and (2) devote some serious effort to understanding what has already been written to you. Then, after a long interval of not creating or editing with sock-puppet accounts, (3) read WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, (4) read it again, thoroughly, (5) probably read it one more time, to make sure you understand what administrators will be looking for in an appeal, and what was problematic about your behavior before, and finally (6) file an appeal as it describes. --JBL (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: ZNKA, TOAARN23 both indef blocked for block evasion today. Please don't create a third one, NeverTry4Me. This is silly. El_C 13:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

MoiKebolTumar makes 3. El_C 04:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not tagging anyone. I have no ties to the old account (as you discussed) and have no plans to do so (I just laughed). This individual (the subject) has a Facebook page where he constantly posts/states that all ULFA leaders should have Wikipedia pages established for them and he's doing it. We're all in good spirits. That is not an issue. Then he started contacting everyone to write an article (no outing from my side). Although I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I am an engineer. Because we use similar platforms/method/psychology/rules to run our company, it takes one engineer 30 minutes to learn everything in a new platform. Because of his mental health, this user is restricted in his community (journalism). Isolated! Is it possible to send an email to one of you admin? I can explain everything. This is my last post regarding that user. Thanks to him for introducing you all. I'll try my best to do something here. GeezGod (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked GeezGod indef (User_talk:GeezGod#Indefinite_block) for that Because of his mental health, this user is restricted in his community (journalism). So now both of them have been indeffed (by me), so hopefully, they'll both decide to move on from this Facebook-to-Wikipedia, whatever it is. El_C 14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we at WP:3X level yet? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a moot point since the OP has already been blocked, but please don't lie completely through your teeth with statements such as He is a reputed editor with so many years of experience. Any one of us, me included, can easily verify NeverTry4Me's experience, or lack thereof in this case, and attempting to fabricate otherwise in a mountain of evidence is surely not a good look for any user. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

After having a second look at NeverTry4Me's contrib log, I have retracted the above comment. I don't think it's fair for me to make that assessment, though this has no bearing on competence issues. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that it appears the apparent evasion was a joe-job. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, shit. El_C 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm tidying up their contributions, many will be speedied under G3/G5 or by my own motion for being a ghastly useless mess. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unrelated to the festival of socks, would someone mind an eye at Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta? It was created by Nalbarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is since CU blocked (cc @Joe Roe:) with no substantive edits, although NeverTry is in the history. It's unclear whether this is a G5 creation, but given two blocked editor in the history probably needs some eyes from those familiar with either editor. Thanks! Star Mississippi 20:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor Toyota Corolla E140 and uploading images

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

---

As per this edit here, I think Toyota Corolla E140 has pretty much confirmed that he's either not listening, not here to improve the project, or both:

Pretty fucking idiotic to ban me from wikipedia and preventing me from uploading photos, just because i did something wrong once, first upload was my bad, i accidentally posted it as my own work, second i posted it with the wrong license and now im banned? Fuck of both of you, especially "magog the fucking orge" i dont car what have i tried to say about the license but the FUCKING photo has been uploaded twice and i stopped but still "EaRnInG a MuCh LoNgEr BLocK" fuck of both of you, i hope both of you have a stroke and die.

The entire exchange is on my talk page Volkswagen Phaeton main photo here. Editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• This one is hilarious, too. Probably it is too late to get them to understand (1) "copyright" is the legal ownership scheme that applies to intellectual property (and is completely independent the ability to copy a digital image), and (2) Commons and Wikipedia are two different websites. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think that the intent to improve the encyclopaedia is genuine. There's just a total lack of comprehension of what copyright is. In fairness, you used the word "troll" first, Chaheel Riens. If you didn't think it to be true at that point, it would have been better not to say it at all. It very probably didn't help. If the account-holder isn't going to edit any more at all, I think that the problem is solved by the account-holder xyrself. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think this message should be revdeled, and maybe a block, as this message is totally unacceptable. --Stylez995 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Toyota_Corolla_E140#Indefinite_block. Uncle G, the "troll" quote actually reads: I was beginning to think them a troll, but a recent post makes me think not. El_C 13:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I know what it reads, thank you. As I just said, it would have been better not to say that at all if one no longer thinks that the person is a troll. It clearly got the person saying "troll" back, and that escalated into warnings about saying "troll" from the first person to say "troll", and then it got even worse. Just not even bringing up the subject if one didn't think it to be the case would have been better. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. El_C 13:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Block evation

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

---

A user doing LTA has again being evading block [160] with new IP [161]. --C messier (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And now is edit warring, not acknowledging consesus. --C messier (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

it is the same user as here (still blocked) or here. --C messier (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

IP 62.98.133.82/62.98.130.202

62.98.133.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is carrying on the same disruptive editing that 62.98.130.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was recently blocked for (their block expired today). As noted in the earlier report, they continually add/re-add information, which has shown to be incorrect. Their talk page comments are hostile and abusive and include what may be seen as a legal threat.[162] So far, they are editing six or more articles, so I'm not sure that RfPP is a good option. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

IP is now also using 62.98.156.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), so RfPP may be appropriate. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an expert, but saw this thread. Given the history, I'd think blocking of some kind is needed, considering past legal threat, hostility, etc. Possibly range block at 62.98.0.0/16?... Or would that be too much...? Magitroopa (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Realjamesh

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

---

User talk:Realjamesh Multiple IP addresses spamming same image on banned user's talkpage. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Alpha Piscis Austrini, I've protected it and removed the garbage. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Manipulation of wikipedia by a French presidential candidate team

Hello. An infiltrated journalist in the campaign of French presidential candidate Éric Zemmour revealed that they had a team focused on manipulating Wikipedia. It was leaked to a French wp admin who identified the following accounts:

• Cheep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CreativeC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Additional information can be found (in French) on fr.wp administrator's noticeboard. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've left AMI notices for the accounts that you did not notify.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot one. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed editors from the list who either are not registered at en.wiki or who have no edits at en.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Comte0: Have you thought about filing a CU on Commons to confirm that "IllianDerex" is one of Cheep's socks? M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am not active on commons anymore. Please do, thank you. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  A checkuser request has already been done on frwiki, came back positive between these two accounts. Regards. --Thibaut (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, in order to avoid suspicion, they used a single purpose account to upload a photo of Zemmour to Commons before adding it to the Reconquête article using their main account (which was used to add the photo that they openly uploaded to other projects[163][164]). To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• The French Wikipedia community seem to be clearly in favour of blocking all involved Wikipedians. I suggest we hold a discussion over blocking these three on en.wiki too. The press sources at the French ANI also make it possible for us to include content in various articles about Reconquête's astroturfing and misinformation tactics on Wikipedia and social media. We should also consider whether to keep using images uploaded by those involved e.g. File:Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg, used at Éric Zemmour and Reconquête. As far as possible, we will want to check the contributions of these three editors for policy violations that remain in articles, and perhaps could do with organising that in a manner like CCI does for Cheep to avoid redundant work. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  While waiting to see what other images have been used by those involved, I have removed File:Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg from both articles. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is a related discussion at WP:VPM#WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President, which I created at the urging of a French sysop and bureaucrat who urged me to do so. I was unaware of this ANI discussion at the time, and probably I was composing the VPM message at the same time. In any case, this ANI should take precedence, but there may be links or other information there of interest. Or perhaps each discussion could continue with their separate scope and goals, with ANI performing the usual behavioral monitoring and blocks as appropriate, and the VPM article exposing what is going on and why, with the possibility of a broader discussion there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This had no tangible effect on English Wikipedia, other than the upload of some rather nice photos, which it will be a shame to see removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you think they are nice is proof that they have achieved their goal (to make him look presidential). M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

They are in fact nice, high resolution photos that illustrate the subject well. The next best photos of Zemmour we have are over a decade old. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course they are "nice". You don't expect his PR people to upload images of him that don't make him look presidential, do you? M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to go do something useful, why don't you clean up Reconquête, which has been extensively edited by Cheep, who is known to have been part of this campaign? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If I ever need some useless advice, you'll be the first to know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see anything wrong with the picture. Additionally, it's buried in the middle of the article. JBchrch talk 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the picture per se (there is nothing wrong with it), it's about who uploaded it and for what purpose. Leaving it would send a clear signal to all those who want to promote themselves: 1) if you want your "beautiful" image to stick, make sure you hire a professional photographer. 2) It really doesn't matter if you get caught, we accept faits accomplis. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons allows undisclosed paid affiliations with the subjects of the images that are uploaded on it. It is certainly not appropriate that people associated with the campaign appear to have initially inserted it into the English Wikipedia article. That being said, the current location of that photo in the English Wikipedia article looks appropriate—are there any better photos that you suggest we put there? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a much wider debate than this image, but yes, we do accept fait accompli. I'm not happy about it, but we do. There's no policy that provides for the removal or deletion of content written by COI/UPE editors provided that it complies with the rest of the policies or guidelines. The best we got is WP:DEL-REASON # 14 combined with WP:PROMO, but good luck arguing that at AFD if the article is not-too-bad and the subject is notable. There is of course a broader debate to have about this, but I would argue that this is not a good case to launch that discussion, because the image does improve the encyclopedia, even if it has been uploaded by a campaign member. JBchrch talk 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROMO is obviously what I've been referring to all along. Even though I'm aware that no single policy can be used to remove the image (wp policies don't usually work in isolation anyway), I was hoping that others may agree, especially now that story is in the newspapers.[165][166][167] M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I'm unconvinced there's any fait accompli here about the image. Something that was sort of mentioned above but perhaps not made clear, there's nothing wrong with a subject getting a professional photographer to take an image and then uploading it to commons provided they declare their interest and ensure it's appropriately licenced by the copyright holder. In fact, in some ways we encourage it. So in terms of the image being uploaded, the only problem is the COI was not declared and a possible use of sock or meatpuppets. Otherwise the actions were perfectly fine.

On en.wikipedia there is a wide problem. They should have only proposed the addition of the image on the talk page (along with a declaration of their COI, and of course without any sock or meatpuppetry) rather than directly adding it. Any editor without a COI would then be free to add it if they felt it was suitable. It's unfortunate this is not what they did. However while it's wrong they didn't do so, we should not punish them by removing the image just because they didn't do so.

Instead we should fairly evaluate whether the image belongs in the article, and where to place it. I have not looked into this in detail, but it sort of seems like this has basically happened, editors have evaluated the image and alternatives they're aware of and came to the conclusion it's fine where it is. While we obviously cannot know what would have happened if they had done things properly, there's a fair chance it would be the same or at least very similar (maybe the image would be in a slightly different location).

The way I see it, the only likely reason things would have been different is there's a chance no one would have noticed/dealt with the query, not because they disagree but simply because thats how Wikipedia can work. Especially if the subject, is obscure which admittedly doesn't apply here. Although the fact they are unpopular may have meant editors said yeah, nah not going to spend my time dealing with this (which I can understand). While editors still should not be ignoring our strong recommendations not to directly edit, it's also silly to tell them "sure if editors had actually bother to dealt with your query, you'd probably have the same result but probably no one would have so we'd have a different result and for this reason what you did is wrong/unfair".

To be clear, as a regular at WP:BLP/N I can say we occassionaly get COI editors unhappy with an image we use. (I'm lazy to dig up examples but see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 38#Getting more freely licensed media by allowing fair use images of living persons, while the idea was very bad IMO, it does mention mention a specific case of what I'm talking about in another Wikipedia.) Provided the image isn't so bad as to be a clear negative, our only real solution is generally to explain that we can only use freely licenced image so until we find a replacement, we will have to keep using the one we're using. Some editors make it clearer and explain if they upload a better freely licenced images, we may use it.

You're not the first editor to complain about flattering photos but since we require freely licenced content and it can often be difficult to get a good photo even for someone who semi regularly appears in public if you're just randomly snapping photos, professional photos which may be intended to be flattering are often our best choice when they are available.

Notably with many US federal politicians and government officials, since they tend to have official portraits etc and these are freely licenced if works of the US federal government, these are often our go to choice. Especially for more obscure figures or those who don't do a lot of work where photographs are taken, official portraits may be our only images. Ketanji Brown Jackson mentioned below is sort of an example of this although that article also includes professional photos from Harvard and maybe others. I'm reminded also of Wilton Daniel Gregory where at least in the past, the photos were released by some part of the Catholic church.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with @Hemiauchenia with respect to Eric Zemmour. I took a look at this some weeks ago when I attempted a clean-up of the article, and I did not notice any suspicious activity. JBchrch talk 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not to be that guy… but is linking accounts to real-world affiliations WP:OUTING or is it OK? There were a lot of suppressed edits at Ketanji Brown Jackson and its talk pages after a report came out regarding someone who edited that page. I’m a bit confused on how the policy is supposed to be applied. Does the literal name of an individual need to be contained in an off-wiki link for it to be considered outing, rather than an affiliation of the specific editor with a third-party? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the French ANI thread and there is no attempt to connect specific accounts with real-world names. I don't see an issue here. For Ketanji Brown Jackson, the suppression was due to the fact that the accounts supposed real-life identity was mentioned in the report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure I have this right: a report that mentions a username and its affiliation with a particular article subject, but not the real-world name, is Kosher? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is the only reasonable intepretation of WP:OUTING. Nobody is suggesting that any of these accounts is Zemmour himself, but just part of his campaign. If we couldn't accuse people of having COI's with regard to certain organisations or individuals then WP:COIN would have to be shut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indef blocks now in place at fr-wiki for: fr:Cheep (talk · contribs) and fr:Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs) after 50-some votes in favor. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Also for fr:Trismegiste0 (talk · contribs), fr:Salomegrd (talk · contribs), fr:Shōkakū24 (talk · contribs), and fr:Maurice Roux (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• For information. A news article in The Guardian 17 February 2022 - French reporter infiltrates campaign of far-right presidential candidate Éric Zemmour. I read it before this thread was opened, but didn't see enough in it to get enwiki involved. Narky Blert (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Can I safely assume the members of the presidential candidate team are being compensated in some way shape or form for their efforts? That seems more than just WP:NOTHERE, but firmly into WP:PAID territory. Kleuske (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kleuske, not necessarily. At least in some countries, campaigns rely heavily on volunteers (see https://www.google.com/search?q=%22campaign+volunteer%22), so unless France is different, it's quite possible that these people aren't paid at all. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • IDK about France, but here in UK paying for campaigners is virtually unheard of. For one thing, campaign expenses are capped and must be declared; link. I'm not sure of the penalties for overspending, but they may include prosecution and rerunning the election without you. Narky Blert (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about my broken English. I tried to sum up the story here on meta: m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Clandestine task force actively promoting Eric Zemmour's presidential campaign at Wikipedia. Best regards, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: NOTHERE block of involved editors

I'll get the ball rolling—I propose that Cheep, CreativeC and Film sur Léo Major are indefinitely blocked as not here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia. This matches the French reaction to the same news, with 50+ users participating in the discussion that came to an essentially universal consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: Cheep has now been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for CreativeC, which has not edited since 2019 and has not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia (blocks are not punitive, but preventative). Support for Cheep, who has actively edited in a COI manner if press reports are to be believed. I'm not sure about Film sur Léo Major: I can't identify any disruptive edits by the user. I'm unsure about if the user is a sock of Cheep being used to avoid scrutiny, or simply WP:MEAT, but that's best left for SPI. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Cheep, who has clearly done undisclosed COI work regarding Zemmour on English Wikipedia. Oppose for the others, as they have not edited English Wikipedia about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's important to respond rapidly because Wikipedia is very vulnerable to this sort of coordinated attack from high-profile figures; if there is any perception whatsoever that it produced any positive results, even temporarily, we could expect to see many more. Even for the editors who have not yet edited significantly about this in enwiki, the fact that they have declared or clearly displayed an intent to edit Wikipedia in order to advance a particular politician is sufficient to justify a preventative block per WP:NOTHERE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Cheep but not others per @Hemiauchenia: reasoning. Cinadon36 08:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom; although I agree that blocking accounts with few edits and little time on the project might be unnecessary  :) SN54129 13:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What do we think that Special:Diff/1039556531 (and Special:Diff/1039635235 and Special:Diff/1039635479 and Special:Diff/1051758630) where Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs) signs xyrself as another, non-existent, account, is all about? Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I found the answer myself. Account rename on the French Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for all of them, as they have not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia.--Emigré55 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I do not see the block as punitive for someone who isn't currently editing. It is about preventing future issues and creating an incentive to not use Wikipedia in this fashion. In this particular situation, it's the proper course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. It's a reasonable preventative step to take given the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support all three as a fully justified step based on their previous edit history, to prevent damage to the English version of the encyclopedia. Let's also recall that this is about presidential politics, and not about angels dancing on the head of a pin. A block is not a WP:BAN; they can be unblocked the day after with an appeal showing why there is no danger of the kind of damage they caused at fr-wiki that led to an explosion of articles in the French press about manipulation of Wikipedia, from being reproduced here. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• The mantra "preventative not punitive" supports blocking of editors who are likely to disrupt the English Wikipedia, rather than, as one or two people have claimed, opposing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Muhmmadaht

User Muhmmadaht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ignores the rules prescribed in WP:RS and WP:CONS and removes information from the article Mongolic peoples. In particular, he selectively removes the mention of one ethnic group according to its own judgments. I ask you to take action against the user and remind him of the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: per the big orange banner that you get when editing this page, you should notify an editor on their talk page when you report them here. I have done so for you. I'll also note that there was another ANI report about this same user a few days ago (here) which has since been retracted, originally posted by HistoryofIran. Finally, please post diffs providing direct evidence for any allegations: this is much easier for admins (who are also volunteers and have limited time!) to handle. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! User Muhmmadaht removed references to Hazaras who were of Mongol origin: [[168]]. According to the sources provided, the Hazaras are of Mongolian origin and spoke the Mongolian language until the 19th century. The Hazaras have been added to the chapter on ethnic groups of Mongolian origin. However, Muhmmadaht continues to delete information confirmed by reliable sources: [[169]], [[170]], [[171]]. I urged the user to come to a consensus, but this was not successful. The sources refer to the Hazaras, who spoke the Mongolian language until the 19th century. But for some reason he continues to write that the Moghols are mentioned in the sources. For some strange reason, he urges not to confuse the Moghols with the Hazaras. But the sources speak specifically about the Hazaras: I have added quotes and references.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Public wifi single-purpose editing at Cher Scarlett

Feeling some deja vu at Cher Scarlett with some edits that have altered the WP:NPOV and introduced WP:LIBEL, a few of which seem to intend to subtly discredit Scarlett's role in the organizing at Apple Inc..

128.119.202.233, 128.119.202.78, and 128.119.202.52 all seem to be the same user utilizing public wifi, and engaged in WP:EW, despite repeated requests to use the talk page. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

LTA back with two new /64 ranges

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely nearly a year ago and has returned regularly as an IP for continued disruption. 2603:8000:B03:E5C5:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been a recurring favorite and is currently under a 3-month block.

• 2603:8000:B00:17BD:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B03:D526:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These two are active now and carry all the hallmarks of this LTA. Edits are mostly to automotive articles, the rest related to professional wrestling. Disruption includes tampering with dimensions, messing with predecessor/successor entries, and other falsities like adding a "previous owner" for a firm in a time period in which it didn't exist. Both ranges resolve to Downey, California; all of this LTA's IPs are from either there or adjacent Bellflower. --Sable232 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This vandal is still active at this very moment: [172] --Sable232 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

More misinformation vandalism. Ninenine99's commitment to disrupting Wikipedia is considerable. Materialscientist - as the administrator who made the last rangeblock, your input would be appreciated. --Sable232 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Delete P____"

A group of IP users:

• 81.161.49.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.94.128.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.80.213.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 220.141.206.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.20.88.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.92.21.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 217.164.148.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possibly the same person, using a proxy, has been adding "Delete P (numbers)" to articles without clear reason. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another group of IPs:

• 69.116.240.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.150.19.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 191.36.147.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been making edits with the same edit summary, but this time it's "Q105103969 needs to suffer". --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the IP editors are making Verifiedhandlers.com to suffer, Googling the "Q105103969". I needed to run basically everywhere to revert this shit. Another IP is also 190.87.160.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinging Sea Cow, since Sea Cow may be familiar with this. Severestorm28 23:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Familiar" is a understatement. There's been roughly 10 different messages the botnet is doing. They do it for maybe 10 minutes, stop for 2, find a new message, and the process repeats itself. There's more IP's than listed above I believe. Sea Cow (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You said this is a botnet; are we talking zombies or is this a case of someone renting out a bunch of IPs to do this? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a suspicion, but probably renting out a IPs. I would find it hard to believe that someone has such a vendetta that they would use zombies. Sea Cow (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Filter 1184 (hist · log) (private) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely has to do with that site; see the history of TheresNoTime's talk page and this page (referring to "vh"), and d:Property:P9395 and d:Q105103969 are that site. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Banish Verefied Handles already the database is ridiculously selective."

Multiple IP users are just adding "Banish Verefied Handles already the database is ridiculously selective.". This is similar to the thread ""Delete P____"" above, and there are about a hundred IPs adding the quote on various articles. Severestorm28 23:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a bot attack probably using some sort of residential proxy service. I started a list here:

From that list I did find a few blockable ranges that didn't seem likely to have much collateral damage. Most of the addresses were too diffuse for rangeblocks, at least given my sample. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit! There should be more IPs on the loose, this is just damaging Wikipedia. Severestorm28 23:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this something we could add to the abuse filter for a little while? (I don't know what the procedure is to adding something temporarily). Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, though looking at some of the previous bot-like attacks, which you can see in older contributions from this range, the vandalism content mutates somewhat. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

My guess is whoever is running the bot's changing the message in an effort to dodge (or otherwise make irrelevant) edit filters. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost definitely the same bunch as yesterday. From a technical perspective, my money is on "botnet", which means that long IP blocks probably won't help much, unfortunately. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

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

---

Could you please delete this [173] history? HeeraDrishti (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The OP has been blocked as confirmed sock. Wikimedia Commons is a different website from Wikipedia. --Stylez995 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour

Newish editor User:Telanian7790 has previously been blocked for edit warrning on College of Policing. Now that he/she has been released from the block his/her first action was to reinstate the very same edit that caused the block. On the article's talk page the editor's response to discussions is uncivil, e.g. diff1 "What a bizarre response" and diff2 "Thank you for that emotional and unconstructive outburst". It seems to me that this editor doesn't want to play nicely and is only here to cause trouble / engage in arguments with others. --10mmsocket (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this, so this following epistemology (yes, I'm going full phisosopher today!) point might miss the mark. But when we summarize a source, in a sense, we interpret what it says. Now, as Telanian7790 notes, if it's a faithful interpretation, then all is well. If it isn't, then it'd be deemed WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH. When I read the first diff in isolation, I don't find it outside the realms of spirited debate (i.e. "bizarre," etc.). I'm just gonna quote that exchange in full:

And again your are interpreting what the source says. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. Of course I have ‘interpreted’ the source. That is what Wikipedia is based on: taking reliable sources and faithfully and accurately interpreting them. So here’s the important question. Is my interpretation wrong? If you think it is, then please give us what you say is the correct interpretation of the source. Telanian7790 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That actually sounds sensible (again, in relative isolation). Sorry for the weird indents. But I do propose we site ban Telanian7790 for double spaces (fixed in my above quote), a cardinal sin. El_C 13:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What 10mmsocket says is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

I was quite properly suspended for violating the 3 edit rule. I have now read and understood that policy.

When I returned from the suspension, the first thing I did - on 14 February - was to post on the talk page setting out my interpretation of the source and why I thought my proposed edit fairly and correctly represented that source. I invited discussion and comment if anyone disagreed.

10mmsocket responded (on 15 February). Unfortunately, he did not respond with anything productive. He completely ignored my interpetation of the source - he presented no reasoned argument as to why my reasoning was wrong (if it is). Instead, he simply said "And again your are interpreting what the source says." You will see that this is completely unhelpful and unconstructive. As I pointed out in a further response (also on 15 February), Wikipedia is literally based on "taking reliable sources and faithfully and accurately interpreting them." The dispute here is what the source actually says. I thus invited 10mmsocket to engage with me on the substantive issue: why, if at all, did he consider my interpretation of the source to be wrong.

10mmsocket did not respond. I accordingly concluded that he had nothing left to say. No-one else said anything either. So I duly inserted my suggestion into the article (on 17 February).

This prompted a clearly angry and emotional response from 10mmsockett, who furiously reversed my edit and chastised me for doing. Notably however, he again offered no constructive analysis or critcism of my interpretation. I noted (I think entirely fairly) that such emotion was not productive and I invited him to address the actual substantive issues: the actual interpretation of the source. 10mmsocket again ignored that invitation, and instead has run off and made this complaint.

Tl;dr: I am trying to engage constructively in a good faith dispute as to the interpretation of a source. 10mmsocket appears uninterested in having such a discussion.Telanian7790 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Consistent cross-wiki uncivilized behavior and addition of NPOV content by ShieldOfValour

ShieldOfValour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently accuses other editors as "(Chinese) state-sponsored agents" in both the English and Chinese Wikipedia article of Xuzhou when the editors revert their edits which (while truthful) scandal events are inappropraitely added in the lead paragraph as a clear attempt to use Wikipedia as propaganda against the Chinese government when viewed alongside their behavior in edit summaries and zhwiki. This user seems to be not here to build the encyclopedia and assuming bad faith of other editors. Please look into this issue. Thank you with regards, Luciferian𖤐 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional note: This user has stated in his zhwiki talk page (diff@zhwiki) that he is recruiting meatpuppets from Reddit on this issue, so this would also have to be monitored. Luciferian𖤐 13:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion from ShieldOfValour The editing war started when a factual statement of Xuzhou being one of most affected human-trafficking areas in China (supported by well sourced references, one example ) was persistently removed from the lead paragraph as a clear attempt to suppress the most historically and presently significant characteristic of this particular part of China. It's an important ethical and safety related fact that everyone who considers to invest in, move to or visit Xuzhou should know beforehand. The focus of contention is why this can not be part of the lead paragraph. And the escalation came when several senior editors started repeated reverting/deleting content not only added to the main entry but the talk page of the user involved. The state agent claim was made because one of the editors who started the editing war publicly claims on his/her user page to support Chinese Communist Party.

The intention for this user in question to ask help on Reddit is not to find aforementioned meatpuppets. Instead it's to find other senior Wiki editors who are not based out of China and who have an impartial standpoint to the issue in discussion.

Banning my account (ShieldOfValour) doesn't kill the fact. The propaganda war waged by Chinese Government is far and wide. When a negative fact is viewed just as being negative, the fact is lost.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShieldOfValour (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The place to find "senior Wiki editors" is Wikipedia, not Reddit. As far as the content issue is concerned I have reverted your latest edit of Xuzhou as a clear violation of WP:DUE. I will leave the conduct issue to others. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not putting up with this, refusal to get it, accusing other editors of being agents for governments just because they say they live in a country, ignoring WP:DUE and WP:LEAD to push the information as the most important thing in a city (despite the fact no one was removing the contents from the body, just the lead), blatantly trying to circumvent editing warring restrictions by editing logged out. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

From banned ShieldOfValour

• "accusing other editors of being agents..." Guilty as charged except that I only accused one of them who claims to support Chinese Communist Party on their Wikipedia user page.
• "push the information as the most important thing in a city" Guilty as charged except that it's the fact. If it's something that once known, no one will go there for holiday, to live, study or work, then it is the most important thing in that city. I know better than you do about what happened and is happening in that area. I read all the cited sources in English and Chinese. Have you? What makes you more authoritative to say human-trafficking is not the defining character of that city if you haven't even read any of those English references on that page.
• "blatantly trying to circumvent..." Give me a rest. Do I care more about the banned ShieldOfValour account than exposing my IP address? I had multiple tabs open in private mode and some of those I forgot to login into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.129.65 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Revoking new page patroller rights from User:Hatchens due to bad draftifications

I recently came across User:Hatchens while looking at really old articles that were unilaterally draftified. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:ATD-I, and WP:NPPDRAFT, old articles should not be unilaterally draftified; all of those policies reiterate that draftification is meant for new articles. Additionally, WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:NPPDRAFT says that articles "intended to be in mainspace" such as those accepted through the AfC process should not be draftified. Hatchens has repeatedly draftified old articles and already accepted AfC articles. To give a few examples, since October 2021, Hatchens has done the following draftifications:

1. NPX Capital, draftified after acceptance through the AfC process. [174]
2. Draft:State Institute of Design, draftified 8 year old article with several contributors. [175]
3. Draft:Times Business School, draftified a nearly decade old article with several contributors. [176]
4. Draft:Jaro Institute of Technology, Management and Research, draftified accepted AfC submission.[177]
5. Institute of Advanced Research, draftified a 3 year old article from 2017. [178]
6. Draft:Times and Trends Academy, draftified already accepted AfC submission. [179]
7. Indorama Corporation, draftified 8 year old article.[180]
8. Draft:Badruka College, draftified article from 2007(!).[181] Article was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badruka College in 2009.
9. Draft:Ahmedabad Management Association, draftified article from 2006 with many contributors. [182]
10. Draft:Shradha Sharma, draftified article from 2016, with several contributors that was already kept as notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shradha Sharma. [183]
11. Draft:RattanIndia Amravati Thermal Power Project, draftified article from 2014. [184]
12. Draft:RattanIndia Nashik Thermal Power Station, draftified article from 2014. [185]
13. Draft:OCTAVE Business School, draftified article from 2011 with many different editors. [186]

Hatchens has been made aware their draftification behaviour is inappropriate before. In November of 2021 in reference to the Indorama Corporation article, Paul 012 informed them that unilateral draftification is usually inappropriate "for articles which have existed in for eight years".[187] They likely saw this as they edited the article after Paul. [188] They are also currently blocked for 24 hours by Bbb23 for improper speedy deletion tagging of schools under WP:A7.[189]
Looking at User:Hatchens/Draftify log, they have draftified 54 articles since October 2021. This means they have an erroneous draftification rate of around 24% (13/54) since October. This is far too high for someone who is a new page reviewer. [190] I am therefore asking that Hatchens have their new page reviewer rights revoked and be indefinitely banned from moving any more articles from mainspace to draft. They are either disregarding the norms around draftification or they are not properly reviewing the page history before performing draftifications. Either way, they clearly should not be allowed to review pages if they cannot properly use a key component of the new page patroller toolkit. They should also not be allowed to draftify any more articles. I would also ask that an administrator consider reviewing Hatchens' past draftifications that have been G13'd to see if they were appropriate, or at the very least WP:REFUND them so others can do so. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: You haven't notified Hatchens of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Oh shoot it didn't save sorry. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Patroller user right really does a whole lot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but I think Chess is talking about the new page reviewer right. Perhaps you're thinking of the Autopatrolled right?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At least from what I know, all the right does is give a small menu with deletion, tagging, and the ability to patrol articles. Removing the right won't remove the ability to draftify or do any of those things except patrolling.

I haven't looked at their behaviour, but please note the above. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is (or was?) called "patroller" in the code. It doesn't matter; I'll just call it "New Page Reviewer". But I don't think it really does all that much – it just lets you mark new pages as reviewed. To get the user right, you need to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia's quality control, and one of the guidelines for revocation is "performing obviously controversial reviews". If the editor has trouble with draftification and speedy deletion, they probably shouldn't be a New Page Reviewer, but, on the other hand, not being able to set a page as "reviewed" won't do anything to stop potential disruption. 90% of reviewing pages can be done without the New Page Reviewer right. It's mostly political – a badge that says "I'm an experienced editor". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I second that. Draftifying old pages has nothing to do with NPR because the feed doesn't show articles that have existed "unreviewed" for more than 90 days. I've seen Hatchens making several mistakes on AfC approved articles. For instance, they draftify instead of using the right venue of AfD. That is to say, I'd tell them they should take someone from the WP:NPPSCHOOL as a mentor and learn the stuff around. It would help them best. Draftifying AfC approved articles is surely a problem with an editor's NPP skills; and I would agree with the removal of NPR rights from Hatchens, and suggest them to join the NPP school to learn more and follow in the steps of their mentor, who mighty eventually end in giving them the right permanently. But what is the solution for draftification of old articles? I believe NPP school's tutoring would help them to solve this as well. Best. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 03:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• All of the cited examples except the first are from October to early November last year, before Hatchens was informed by several editors (including Muhandes, Timtrent and Liz) of the issue. Given that the problematic draftifications mostly ceased afterwards, it seems that Hatchens responded well to those warnings and further sanctions wouldn't be necessary nor beneficial. The NPX Capital case seems like an isolated incident, with a separate though related issue (draftifying an article previously accepted at AfC) which could be addressed with a warning and education. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Paul 012 Thank you for the ping.

  I hold the firm view that Hatchens is a collegial editor who wishes to learn and is willing to learn, and who makes mistakes from time to time. I have never known them not learn from their mistakes and have never known them respond poorly to education. I have mentored them from time to time, at their own request. The key is that Hatchens is usually aware of the things they do not know and will ask for help.

  While there are times I would prefer them to have asked for help earlier they have, in my experience, always worked to mitigate any errors. I find that a useful behaviour. We all make mistakes. I guarantee to continue to make some of my own. The key is whether we learn from them. My view is that they do.

  The NPP right is as susceptible to editor errors as any process. As an AFC reviewer I have also wondered for my own purposes whether AFC and NPP ought not to be mutually exclusive lest a newly accepted draft misses the checks and balances of NPP.

  Since this discussion suggests removal of that right I think we should first ask Hatchens for their opinion on their retaining or relinquishing that right. I base this on my own questioning of AFC/NPP overlaps and potential mutual exclusivity. Obviously they can only appear here when their short acting block expires. Perhaps we might exercise patience until then? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  As an aside, I am now better educated (by the NPP folk) on NPP. I had made incorrect assumptions or had imperfect memory. I had confused it with Autopatrolled to some extent. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Everyone of those articles are the worst kind of article on Wikipedia, particularly the first one at NPX Capital. Of the seven references that have now been added, one is press-release, three are routine annoucements from press releases, one is the front landing page of the company, which is plain advertising, the best it is possible to get, the 2nd is another press-release and last is a block of PR served as news. We really need a serious conversation about the way Wikipedia is going, because at the moment it is failing, it is in state of failure. On one hand there is a group of earnests editors who are trying to do their best, on the other side, that is by far the bigger group is those who are trying to sink us. I've sent this first article to Afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NPX Capital Hatchens knows all this, yet it will be impossible to delete it scope_creep^Talk 23:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hey guys! I'm back. First of all, if there is any abuse of rights at my end knowingly or unknowingly, then I apologize for it. As far as my awareness is concerned, I have never used my NPP rights to pass substandard articles. I have always taken second opinions whenever I've a small amount of doubt. It (second opinions) empower us to take an active role in maintaining the true essence of the Wikipedia. But, at the same time, the poor interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines cannot be shrugged under the carpet despite having a good intent at my end. Here on Wikipedia, we all are equal no natter what rights has been bestowed on us. So when Bbb23 blocked me for 24 hours; I simply accepted it because their judgement (regarding me) is not at all punitive. They did what they are to supposed to do. And, I have duly accepted my mistake and relinquished my rights to contest the block. Now as far as this ANI discussion is concerned, whatever would be the consensus (about my NPP rights or whichever rights), it will have my full support. Also, I would like to take this moment as an opportunity to thank TheAafi for being unbiased despite being a good friend to me; this depicts the integrity of the person which we all as the Wiki editors should try to learn and emulate. Last but not least, I would also like to thank NinjaRobotPirate, AssumeGoodWraith, Paul_012, Timtrent, Bbb23, and Scope_creep. Hoping this discussion will provide much-required clarity and a way forward for me and others in dealing with similar situations in the future. -Hatchens (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Hatchens, That is to say, Hatchens is an editor who is always willing to learn new things and also from errors they make unknowingly. However, my suggestion for them to join the NPP school remains intact. Reading Paul's comments, I see that Hatchens has improved a lot and fixed several of errors and mistake they had committed in past. Now let us give them a way to education and learning. The 24-hour block that they just went through is enough as a warning. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 04:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Chess, A “bad page move” has absolutely nothing to do with their new page reviewer status. Furthermore in the 12 listed grounds for revocation of the perm no where does it state “Inappropriate Page moves” as grounds for revocation. Although unilaterally draftfying older articles isn’t such a good idea, hypothetically speaking, “bad drafitifications” would fall under (controversial page moves) which falls under page mover rights This would have merited a discussion if it were the page mover rights we are discussing, I’m sorry but I see no merit in this report. Furthermore, if an article is accepted at AFC by an editor who clearly was in the wrong for accepting the article, let’s say if the article was poorly sourced, Draftifying is very much applicable, if not, this would mean bureaucratic proceedings damaging and taking preeminence over WP:COMMONSENSE, this is the very reason for IAR. As aforementioned, whilst I’d condemn draftyfing old articles, which is the only real point here, the rest of the report has no real merit, at least it has no business whatsoever with their NPR perm. Celestina007 (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: If an article is accepted at AfC by an editor who's allegedly in the wrong, then draftification is not appropriate. WP:DRAFTIFY clearly says it's for articles not intended to be in the mainspace, including "reverts of previous draftifications". If an AfC accept is wrong, go to AfD and/or bring it up with the person accepting it. COMMONSENSE is not movewarring. Draftifications are an essential part of WP:New page patrol and is one of the most common actions taken there. That's why it's listed at WP:NPPDRAFT. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Chess, Semantics that can be discussed another day, it still doesn’t take away from the fact that this whole entry is based on a wrong premise. You expressly called for the removal of their reviewer right when it clearly isn't covered under the 12 grounds for revocation of NPR & no, generally speaking move warring is editor A performs an action, editor B reverts, Editor A reverts, I think the essay WP:PMW expounds on that. I haven’t interacted nor worked with you before, but I do see you a lot at RFA's & your thinking process & rationales are always brilliant, so much so that I respect you without necessarily ever working with you. My thinking is closing this report would be the honorable thing to do at this juncture, it is moot, as aforementioned it is based on a very wrong premise. I believe we are too experienced to see there would absolutely nothing coming out of this. Celestina007 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore Chess, I’m not seeing a conversation between yourself and Hatchens prior this ANI, is there one between yourself and them prior this I’m failing to see? Although not mandatory, it usually is a good approach & ANI's are typically evoked after all other options are exhausted and is reserved as a last resort. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: They were warned about bad draftifies already and kept doing so. Never interacted with them, just don't think someone who has that high of an error rate and has already been warned multiple times about the issues should have the ability to draftify or review new pages.

On that note (replying to both of your comments here), the 3rd guideline for granting NPP permissions says that "the editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines" and the 2th guideline for revocation says "the editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in new users being offended or discouraged." I would say that improper draftifications mean that the user has not exercised sufficient care while reviewing new pages, assuming that draftifying is a part of the new page reviewal process in practice as generally it's done by people as a part of WP:NPR. Judging by the response to an RfC I started at WP:VPP, perhaps we should formalize a requirement to be a new page reviewer to draftify articles.

I'd call draftifying accepted articles a WP:MOVEWAR since the default state of articles in a dispute is mainspace as outlined in WP:DRAFTOBJECT (moving an article from draft to namespace would logically entail not wanting to move in the opposite direction) and draftifying is only allowed in uncontroversial circumstances. WP:EDITWARs usually occur when editors are in a dispute and one refuses to accept the status quo and engage in discussion to change it.

Obviously though this thread isn't going to go anywhere though, as you said. I can read the room. You can count this comment as "withdrawing" if it makes it easier for you to close. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Chess, I knew I could count on your intellectual prowess to do the right thing rather than prolonging the inevitable, My thinking is, Hatchens draftifying older articles is definitely wrong, if in the future they persist in this improper approach I believe you are more than justified to file a new report and reference this very ANI. Something you mentioned stimulated me intellectually, are draftifications considered reviewing? or is incubation the inverse of reviewing? I think your proposal above does have merit. I’m moving to close this, this is precisely the sort of mature behavior I want to see in all established editors. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: You're laying the flattery on a little too thick and in the future it could be more subtle. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Competence issues regarding User:CycoMa1

A couple of weeks back, the Furry fandom article came to my attention via a post at WP:BLP/N. The specific issue was sorted quickly enough, but a closer look at the article showed several issues. There were problems with sourcing, and with neutrality, but those could probably be dealt with in the normal manner. More fundamentally though, the article was simply incoherent in places, and a bloated, unstructured mess of almost random and contradictory malformed and ungrammatical sentences almost everywhere. Inspection of the article history revealed that back in August last year, this was then what appeared to be a reasonably-written article, by Wikipedia standards. Not without issues, but at least as it stood a readable exposition of its subject matter. The article has been transformed from that state to its current one almost entirely due to the efforts of a single contributor, CycoMa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has over that period made over 1000 edits. I have, on the article talk page, tried engaging with CycoMa1, but got absolutely nowhere in getting this contributor to even acknowledge the underlying issues. To be blunt, I simply don't think that CycoMa1 is competent to deal with articles of such complexity, and having tried, and failed, to get anywhere my patience has now run out. Accordingly, I reverted the article to the state it was in as of late August last year, indicating that my reasoning was given on the talk page. [191] CycoMa1 then immediately reverted back to their preferred version, with an edit summary stating "There was no consensus Undid revision 1072697860" [192]

I had considered starting an RfC on the issue, but given CycoMa1's apparent inability to understand the need for articles to be properly structured and written in comprehensible encyclopaedic English, as demonstrated repeatedly on the article talk page, [193] it now seems to me that such a course of action would risk merely shifting the problem elsewhere. Accordingly, I would ask people to take a quick look at the two versions of the article as linked below (a complete reading is hardly necessary to amply demonstrate the problem), and then consider what the best course of action would be. I have no reason to doubt that CycoMa1 is acting in good faith, but in my opinion that is not enough. Not when 'good faith' turns encyclopaedic content into a confused word-salad of random things cherry-picked from questionably-sourced articles about furries. It seems evident that CycoMa1's level of literacy is simply inadequate for the task. Possibly a topic ban from 'furry'-related articles might be the solution, though as I note, this seems to be a fundamental competence issue, and that risks moving the problem to other articles. Perhaps mentoring might be a solution, that that would require a volunteer, and an acknowledgement from CycoMa1 that there is actually a serious problem. Failing that, I'm not quite sure what to suggest, beyond noting that as a last resort Wikipedia can and does block contributors for a lack of competence on occasion. Not a pleasant thing to do, but sometimes necessary for the good of a project that aspires to be an encyclopaedia.

Furry fandom article as edited by CycoMa1: [194]

Furry fandom article as restored to earlier state by me: [195]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have, on the article talk page, tried engaging with CycoMa1, but got absolutely nowhere in getting this contributor to even acknowledge the underlying issues.

Tried engaging with me. Dude when I tried engaging with you at first you were rude to me and you never even said sorry or apologized to me for being rude.

Plus it feels like the only reason you want to change it back to it’s original state is to make it more structured. I mean the old version of the article had outdated information and was also guilty of the same issues you and other editors mentioned.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Plus no other editor on that article agreed with or said they were in support of you changing it back to its original state.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sentences such as "More intellectual furries would claim that the central themes of the fandom have existed for thousands although the arrival fandom is a modern occurrence." do not inspire confidence in CycoMa1's version. - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s what the source said. Look I know that statement seems ridiculous and honestly I think that statement is ridiculous but I didn’t want to distort what the source was trying to say on the matter.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not about the content, that is barely coherent English. MrOllie (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Look I have been busy with work and school in real life. I mean Jesus Christ I had to edit while doing homework at the same time. There were times where I edited articles while cleaning my house.

Plus you guys all know I have ADHD and GAD. I mean seriously it feels like I have to reveal my personal life just in order to prevent myself from not getting in trouble.

Like I know how to write in good English. It’s just I do better when I have time.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER. Jurta talk 11:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jurta: I guess that’s kinda the issue I’m facing, I’m honestly too dedicated.

I remember people a couple of months ago feeling concerned for me when I admitted I made 100 edits per day. Even wiki admins felt concerned for me.

I guess I need to remind myself Wikipedia is mainly just a hobby I choose to do.CycoMa1 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Look I even suggested I could rewrite the entire article in my personal sandbox. But apparently Andy said I was incompetent and couldn’t do it.

Look man I understand my strengths, I have been in special education classes ever since I was a young child. I feel embarrassed to admit that.

Look I knew I messed up the article and I honestly disappointed in myself for that. It honestly looks horrible in my opinion.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I learned that my writing is good when I have tons of free time and I’m not multitasking. It’s just I got too dedicated to Wikipedia too the point I forgot that.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• CycoMa1 can do good work on Wikipedia. Don't just take my word for it; look at the barnstars and many accepted AfCs on his talk page and archives. He also has a knack for finding high quality sources in my experience. I think what he needs is advice to slow down and make absolutely sure that anything he adds to article space is fully copyedited before he adds it. And also make sure it's coherent with surrounding text. It should not be inserted and left there while unfinished. And CycoMa1, please don't let Wikipedia take up too much of your time. It will always be a work in progress and it can wait; chores and homework are more important. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've not really commented on CycoMa1's edits elsewhere on Wikipedia, but since it has come up, I'll note that I have noticed similar problems elsewhere, even after only a brief search. See e.g. these recent edits to Vampire lifestyle, [196] which clearly isn't an accurate representation of the source. [197] Being able to find sources isn't sufficient, one also needs to be able to understand, and accurately summarise, what they say. And not use them to imply things they don't say, which also seems to be a common trend: see e.g. the stub article Candelaria fibrosa, created by CycoMa1, which contains a statement that this fungi species "has been found in Buncombe county in North Carolina". This appears to be true. It cites a source that says so. It is however a complete red herring, since the fungi has apparently been found throughout much of the eastern United States and elsewhere, making its occurrence in Buncombe county of no significance at all. [198] Assembling random statements into articles like this may look superficially convincing, but it isn't encyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: As a sidenote I have been talking to doctors about reducing my ADHD medication.

No joke a couple of months ago I used to take 3 pills a day but I talked with my doctors about reducing to only 2 pills per day and see what happens. Maybe me reducing ADHD medication might be another cause of my behavior.

Plus there are days where I don’t buy medication because I want to save money. So there are days where I act differently than usual.

Also sidenote when I was interacting with you today I was literally stocking shelves at my work place. So I had to multitask and I misread your comments.

The AfCs that I submitted were accepted by editors who are more experienced than me.

User:KylieTastic,User:Theroadislong, User: Robert McClenon, or User:DGG have accepted my AfCs keep in mind these guys are literally in the top 1000 editors.

Admin User:CaptainEek accepted my AfC one time.

If I really was incompetent these individuals wouldn’t accept my AfCs.

The statement above that I find troubling is: "Like I know how to write in good English. It’s just I do better when I have time". If an editor writes drafts that are sometimes in good English and sometimes not in good English, the reviewers check the grammar, as well as the notability and verifiability. The issue appears to have to do with edits that the editor makes directly to mainspace, which are not reviewed before being visible to the readers. I have not reviewed the editor's history in detail, but I find their statement that they have written good drafts to be a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also as a sidenote I’m the kind of guy who researches on a variety of topics in his free time. Because I’m the kind of guy who loves knowledge. Which is why I write on so many subjects. I guess you could say I want to know everything.

Not to mention I try writing in a form of English that can at least be understandable to someone ages 14 to 15. Just throwing that out there.CycoMa1 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

But anyway experienced editors and admins have saw my contributions to Wikipedia.

Sure they called me out for some mistakes but they were fine with most of my contributions.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: you need to find a friend to vibe check you when your writing is reaching the point where it is bad. I know the feeling you have. The best thing you can do is to find someone outside your own mind who you can trust to tell you when you're acting questionably. When one is doing something stupid, most of the time they don't realize it until after the fact, and most people (including yourself as evidenced by the diffs) aren't going to have a good time taking someone's criticism who they aren't friends with. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We now have an acknowledgement from CycoMa1 that there has been a problem with their edits to the Furry fandom article at least: "Look I knew I messed up the article and I honestly disappointed in myself for that...", which would seem to me to be sufficient grounds to restore the revert to the August last year state, unless anyone has any objections. This does of course also revert any edits by other contributors that occurred over the period, so I'll try to check through such edits, to see if there is useful content worth restoring.

Beyond that, it seems that CycoMa1 now recognises what others appear to have said previously - that they should be prioritising school work, rather than Wikipedia. Hopefully this acknowledgment will be sufficient to deal with the issues with other articles too. Wikipedia can wait. Education shouldn't. If CycoMa1 can take that in, and act accordingly, no further action may prove to be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792 is NOTHERE to build an encylopedia

‎EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to enjoy a WP:BATTLEGROUND. As evidence, consider the edit summaries in Special:Contributions/EnlightenmentNow1792 and the uncivil BLUDGEONING both at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pepe_Escobar and at Talk:Persian_Gulf#Request_for_comments:_Arabian_Gulf.

His latest, extremely POINTy edit has prompted this filing.[199]

But I am also troubled by his willingness to assert as facts things that are simply not true, for example, asserting that JacobinMag (sic.) is nowhere close to being a RS when Jacobin (magazine) is not a redlink, and is included at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources where "There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source."

And for another example, his false claims and repeated violation of BLPTALK in disputes about (to quote him) "the warmongering, hate-filled Escobar" such as no serious outlet has ever published his work or a single piece of his may contain half a dozen fails (references to long debunked theories, 9/11 denial, various ongoing popular conspiracy theories, with AIPAC and Mossad and the CIA all secretly orchestrating everything that happens or tens of thousands of unhinged rants on extremist websites.

I would welcome an interaction ban, because he has already hounded my contributions to Center for American Progress in order to revert my BRD edit while accusing me of unspecified bad intentions.[200] We don't edit in the same areas, thank god. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support given my interaction with EnlightenmentNow1792 at Uyghur genocide yesterday/today after they tried to introduce a lot of information into the lead which was not supported by the given sources or in the article as well as remove some that was [201][202][203][204][205]. Instead of opening an article talk page discussion or joining the one in progress EnlightenmentNow1792 instead chose to open a discussion on my talk page [206] and chose to edit war with grandiose and error ridden edit summaries "here, will you allow those simple terminological corrections/explications to stand for clarity's sake? Or will I be subject to a third round of ludicrous accusations regarding my person?"[207] "Undid revision 1072620669 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) i thought your behavior was gonna end up at this level eventually. You're either (a) deliberately keeping imprecises terminology in the lede; or (b) rv for no other reason than just to act out at strangers from your keyboard. whichever it is, it's not helpful. I suggest you take a break."[208] before their inaccurate additions were finally reverted by @Mhawk10:. These sorts of personal attacks are out of line, especially when EnlightenmentNow1792 should be expecting some pushback on significant changes to the lead of a controversial article (including the first line, which is the subject of an open RFC). I had assumed that their behavior otherwise was ok, I now realize that I was getting their *good side* and that the bad is bad enough to warrant not editing anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk), this is cute. I've tried your weeks to ignore your repeated rudeness and personal attacks against myself and numerous other editors, which has led them to make similar complaints against you. From the get go he's accused me of being having a political interest in the issue, suggesting that I am a paid agent of the Chinese government, accused me of being a sockpuppet, reverted my edits 3 times in a row, without being apply no give a reason, saying things like "i felt like you your making things up and going OR" (wrong) and he didn't apologize, but doubled down, reverted my minor edits of terminology 2 more times that day, with sly edit summaries like "no, not really" and "unnecessary" - when all he ever had to do was read the actual sources. But he's made it very clear, many times, that he doesn't intend to read any of the sources, and he doesn't even like reading. So I told him, I'm just going to ignore his childishness from now on, and just regard it as trolling. ----

The lack of self-awareness and sense of entitlement here is staggering.

How many eminently reliable, difficult to find, and unique sources have I added to Wikipedia articles, over a wide array of topics - somestimes taking 9 or 10 hours, days even, painstakingly trying make make Wiki's editorial voice as representative of the latest conventional scholarly wisdom as I can, only for some (one sometimes, but usually two, or three) "true-believers" to perform a mass revert, delete all my sources, and restore the article to a state of misinformation or disinformation, just because they can. It takes them seconds, a click of a button. And each time, I am accused of having a COI or POV, of being a paid editor, being a sockpuppet, and so far variously a shill for the CCP, the Saudi led GCC petrostates, a rightist at first by HouseOfChange, but that backfired spectacularly didn't it mate? And many others, I can't even remember. Oh year I'm supposed to be like three separate ethnicities by now. It happens as soon as a fresh frish tries to make a controversial article more neutral, then the gang of owners see, revert your every move, deny WikiPolicy, say when it supports their argument a crappy tabloid like TheDailyBeast is a RS on GeoPol, but a decorated scholar with dozens of publications and hundreds of citations across 4 decades, a Ph.D from Yale and head of the freakin' department, no, he won't do, because he once, I dunno, interned at the Heritage Foundation.

HouseOfChange there, and I've said to him a 3-4 times, this is not good for you, to hoist your flag to someone who is soooooo not a notable journalist, but who also happens to be a rather despicable person. But he just removed in one flow swoop:

1. The New Republic (2013 or so, but a particularly insightful one);

2. Ayish, M., Mellor, N. (2015). "Reporting in the MENA Region: Cyber Engagement and Pan-Arab Social Media." United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

4. Crone, Christine. Pan-Arab News TV Station Al-Mayadeen: The New Regressive Leftist Media. Peter Lang Publishing, 2020. (very argumentative, but not wrong - it's gone from secular progressive so wildly sectarian, bloodthirsty, and checking their contributers, infested with conspiracy theorists, antisemites, and one I know from his FB, not only an extreme Western Supremacist reactionary, but a Holocaust-denier too boot. You'll be flabbergasted when I tell you he's nearly 50 and never been married, and very, very unhappy about it as a devout Catholic!)

5. Cherribi, Sam. Fridays of Rage: Al Jazeera, the Arab Spring, and Political Islam. Oxford University Press, 2017.

6. Routledge Handbook on Arab Media. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2020.

7. Berman, Ilan. Digital Dictators: Media, Authoritarianism, and America’s New Challenge. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2018.

8. France24, "‘Anti-Al Jazeera’ channel Al Mayadeen goes on air" (2/06/2012) ... But will Al Mayadeen be truly objective and independent?

9. The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2020.

10. Saouli, Adham. "Hezbollah: Socialisation and its Tragic Ironies." Edinburgh University Press, 2018.

11. "Operational Code Analysis and Foreign Policy Roles: Crossing Simon’s Bridge." Taylor & Francis, 2021.

12. "Regional Peacemaking and Conflict Management: A Comparative Approach. Taylor & Francis, (2015).

13. "The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives." SAGE Publications, (2016).

I even messed up my referencing format (and page numbers), because it takes so long to scam through the ones you haven't read, take down the page number, place in the correct part of the paragraph, when you know it's very likely to be deleted permanently by someone who freely admits they don't like reading and claim to not even have any particular reason to be sticking up for this guy. She literally said it was because she thought I had a political axe to grind, and he felt like he should resist my POV.

I was generous to Emilio Escobar and HouseofChange for weeks, but not only did she delete all those high-quality sources, he left in the few articles he managed to right for yer run-of-the-mill news websites between the late 2009s to 2015, 2017 for some others. To make Pepe seem more legit.

Instead, he deleted all the absolute shower of sh*te that his been writing in for the last 7-10 years, that I had literally just added for balance. So.

"He currently writes on an almost daily basis for fringe, conspiracy theorist blogs and websites (many of whom spread fake news) such as a blog called "Uprooted Palestinians",[7] the largely fake news website ZeroHedge, a far-right Moscow-based blog called "The Vineyard of the Saker"[8]], and the same-old universally-blacklisted conspiracy websites [one that Wikipedia won't allow], UNZ[9]. A Portuguese-language only Brazilian website that designs it's content specifically for the Apple iPad[11], a bizarre Greek-language-only Facebook page that calls itself "iskra", and only manages to attract 4-5 clicks per story[10], and now even more regularly for the extremely sectarian[12][13] and warmongering[14] Al Mayadeen, which is based in Beirut, but is widely presumed to be funded and directed by Iran[15][16][17] as it echoes the Iran regimes sectarian rhetoric, shares a lot of staff with Press TV and other Iranian outlets, is exuberant in it's parise for Hezbollah,[18] Assad,[19] Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad,[20] all the while saving its wrath for Iran's favored targets: the West, the USA, and Israel[21] and the irs Sunni Arab GCC monarchies locally.[22]

So her idea of improving the article and showing that he does meet WP:Journalist, was to keep in few dozens decade old articles he wrote for a good few years before he was unceremoniously dropped from them all ever prior or slightly before November, 2015 (if you can guess why there might be a nice little slice of Russian black bread in it for you!). And then just censor the atrocious far-right, conspiracy-peddling, Holocaust denying, antisemitic, anti-vax, anti 5G and all the rest of it. Wikipedia would hardly let me post the outlets he now most frequently writes for: blogs, disinfo fake news outlets, the most sectarian and war-hungry channel in Lebanon, ZeroHedge, Globalization.ca, etc. etc.

I'm exhausted now, but in my defence this is I think the 4th time its happened to me. And all on subjects I happen to be quite well versed in, have personal experience with, and posses a very, very significant library to help me locate sometimes arcane but ofen crucial sources. Not to mention jStor and Scopus access, which I didn't even bother which this time because I could see what was coming.

I still don't understand, this is someone who for years and years published for say, right-of-right Russia Insider and self-conscious frauds/schemes like - they who shall not be mentioned - makes highly dubious, always very conveniently unwitnessed claims about meeting Osama bin Laden just before 9/11 (which he believes was an inside job btw), or that he, as an "investigative journalist" as he called himself back in 2013 (what kind of investigative journalists never bothers to live in the places he writes about, learn their language, or even learn simple things like the distinctions between Daoism and Confucionism, who's been wrong about absolutely all of his key predictions that have remained unchanged since I first became aware of him but I digress. (He's still on about BRICS and a new secular Arab-wide civil uprising. He's been predicting the collapse of the US dollar since the early 2000s.)

But this is a guy who claimed to be a Islam expert after 9/11. His friend, in this blog/interview, says that he discovered and "broke the story" of Belhaj being an al-Qaeda zealot - like millions of other Muslim Arabs at that time. 1) Is that a real scope? and 2) If you think it is, why didn't he report it?

His friend, puts it like this: "In the early 1990s, when James Woolsey was the director of the CIA, Gadhafi appealed to his U.S. interlocutors for assistance against “Islamist extremists” in the Benghazi region.

The investigative reporter behind uncovering the gigantic Libyan con is Brazilian-born Emilio (Pepe) Escobar, a reporter for the online Asia Times. From North Africa to the Middle East to Pakistan, he is well known for breaking stories in the Arab and Muslim worlds. - he is? like what? they're all just unreported like this one as well?

In a piece Escobar wrote for The Maldon Institute, a private investigative organization that publishes “information on matters ignored or misrepresented by the media,” he says “the story of how an al-Qaida asset turned out to be the top Libyan military commander in still war-torn Tripoli is bound to shatter...

1) I know why he never reported it, aside from happying almost zero by-lines or reporting experience to his name (his first two books, published in the late 1990s and 1996s, are just about taking drugs on the Hippy Trail for 20 years... a generation too late), the CIA were already onto him. He was a verteran of the Russo-Afghan War, and was already fighting with Libya's local al-Qaeda affiliate against Gaddafi in 1994. I won't go on, there's lots of tracking him and arresting him and releasing him and other Libyans from Guantanamo Bay because the CIA figured that Gaddafi ran such a type ship they wouldn't be a problem there. The point is, the name Pepe Escobar never once comes up.

2) There's no record of any Brazilian analyst working for the Far-Right, short-lived Maldon Institute either. Why would he work for a firm he opposed with every fibre of his body. How could he work for the group, when he was living, according to his own account, in Central, South, and East Asia, right up until 9/11.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding a few diffs to this wall of text:

• The two previous ANI filings (I think this was withdrawn tho) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#EnlightenmentNow1792
• My statement to another editor that EnlightenmentNow1792 seemed to me to be motivated by his own political POV is not an accusation of being a rightist, but of having a political POV sharply at odds with Escobar.
• Diff of my revert. Obviously, the same or similar material could be re-added but text in Wikipedia's voice would need to respect "WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT" as my edit summary said.
• The Libya story from 2011 that EN1792 claims doesn't exist is online at Asia Times; possibly Maldon republished it? Searching for its title got a bunch of results including Wikileaks, where the young intelligence ops who got leaked were passing it around, together with other stories by Escobar.[209]
• Escobar's story warning about bin Laden is often mentioned because of its date: August 30, 2001. EN1792 repeatedly removed or tagged with scare tags information about the geographical areas where Escobar has worked.[210][211]
• Many fringe outlets re-publish Escobar's work, with his permission. The bio quotes his explanation, that he wants to extend his "audience." Al Mayadeen has republished one (1) of his stories in English, (about prison labor, from 2021), and republishes regularly his monthly article in Spanish for a Venezuelan pub called Mision Verdad.
• The claims of insider knowledge about Escobar, plus the animosity, suggest COI. A topic ban would be good.
• My Wikipedia preferences specify masculine pronouns. HouseOfChange HouseOfChange (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comments: (edit conflict)
  1. On 5 February 2022, when the comment about Jacobin was made, there was no listing of the source on WP:RSP. I had previously made a close of an RfC that the source was WP:MREL. That close was overturned for re-closure by an administrator and was subsequently re-closed by Joe Roe, but it took until 17 February 2022 for the listing of Jacobin as WP:GREL on RSP. It's nowhere near fair to hold this against the user as some sort of There were indeed many users that expressed that some additional considerations applied during the relevant RSN discussion (in fact, the majority didn't actually call it a straight Option 1 source), so I don't think that their view on the reliability Jacobin shows some sort of desire to intentionally bulldoze through established consensus.
  2. EnlightenmentNow1792 appears to have an issue with personal attacks, as shown by the above diffs.
  3. A one-way I-ban with one user isn't going to solve a general issue with WP:NPA violations. It would have to be broader than that to address the problem more concretely. That being said, the editor has a clean block log, and I'm wondering if ‎EnlightenmentNow1792 would be willing to apologize for personal attacks against other editors. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I felt that EnlightenmentNow1792's comments in the Persian Gulf Rfc were a little too wordy to be helpful, so I asked them on their talk page to try to be more concise and to hat a part of it [212]. Instead of replying on their talk, they responded to this with more text in the RfC itself [213], needlessly personalizing and complaining that editors are trolling because they don't spend enough time reading. Another editor hatted part of the earlier comment but was reverted [214]. Despite all of this feedback, the bludgeoning continues [215].

EnlightenmentNow1792's behavior ticks most of the boxes at Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project: there seems to good faith, but they are unwilling to listen, disrespect fellow Wikipedians, and have trouble understanding how building a collaborative, online encyclopedia differs from free-flowing academic debate. I'm not very optimistic about the long-term prospective here, but seeing that the issues appear to be peaking at this particular moment, I would recommend a short block (two weeks would probably be sufficient), hoping that when they come back they will take in the community's advice. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

He is also POV-pushing about other Middle-East journalists besides Escobar. For example, adding peacock text (later reverted to the bio of Fox's Lara Logan but instead tagging for notability the Polk-Award-winning journalist Tracey Shelton. Wikipedia voice should not be enlisted to boost or bash your colleagues BLPs of those working in an area where the editor claims insider knowledge and expertise. (Slight update/modification as EN1792 says he is not currently a journalist) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So, "too wordy", "unwilling to listen", disrespectful, "POV-pushing", "adding peacock text", oh and having a "political agenda" was I believe his first accusation (the second was being a sockpuppet), now HouseOfChange is moving onto accusing me of having a CoI now a third time now (thankfully he has finally ceased bombing my talk page with warnings and threats that he would take me to this place and get be banned, despite me repeatedly asking him not to on my talk page, four times before he ceased). Now my CoI is that am a journalist and on here to bash "my colleagues"? Sorry, no, I'm not, dabbled many, many decades ago, but like square-dancing and cigars, it's just not for me.

And I'm the one who has a problem with personal attacks? I'll let the admin/s be the judge of that. I'll try to furnish them with diffs when this bout of nausea dissipates. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• After I made one comment on an AfD, EnlighenmentNow1792 (diff) commented that "you seem to have made it clear that you are one of the many denizens of Wikipedia had has an aversion to reading". My comment might be seen as dismissive, but it came from trying to read the AfD page and not seeing a clear reason for deletion, and many personal opinions about the subject, which do not belong on AfD. Either way, I think saying that I don't like reading sources on our first interaction is clear battleground mentality. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, so you admit to not reading the relevant Wiki Policy, you admit to not bothering to read by arguments for deletion on the grounds that they're "too wordy", and now you admit you "don't like reading sources" on a first interaction, yet still feel compelled to voice a partisan opinion? Is that not the very personification, the very essence, of emitting a "battleground mentality"? You took the position "I'm not gonna read anything, I'm just gonna disagree", and I call you out on it, and I'm the one emitting a "battleground mentality"? You know it takes hours and hours to read and gather all those academic sources. Yet (talk) is more than happy to delete them en masse (16, 20? I've lost count), and you're proud to say you're not even interested in reading them. "Battleground mentality"? I say! I'd rather we just all spent this time on reading and curating sources, instead of petty point-scoring and name-calling such as all this "incident" amounts to. I'd be doing that right now if it wasn't for all this. Although not on the Pepe Escobar article, as I'm sure HouseOfChange will just delete them on sight again. Battleground mentality indeed. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying that something is long-winded, confusing and contains personal opinions implies that the person who is saying those things have actually read it, and made those conclusions from reading it. I'm not HouseOfChange and no matter what their behavior is, that was still a personal attack on me and you're very hostile for your first and second interactions with me. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, your reply to RoseCherry64 claims that they "admitted" a number of things that are not in their comment at all, and includes a serious misreading of their final sentence. If you are trying to demonstrate that you are not approaching discussions with a battleground mentality, you failed in this instance. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• After attempting to read this thread and also looking at the Pepe Escobar AfD created by EnlightenmentNow, I have blocked EN for one week for disruptive editing. Any administrator is free to make the block longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: or some other admin: Could we have an indef block until there is some acknowledgement by EnlightenmentNow1792 that policies AGF, CIVIL, or BLUDGEON apply to him? Even those who consider themselves subject-matter experts don't get free rein to insult and abuse other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also trying to read their unblock request, I don't think they're quite there yet with BLUDGEON and AGF . I'm getting ever more skeptical about EnlightenmentNow1792 not ending up here again in a few weeks, but then if that happens it won't be a hard decision to go straight to indef. Better let it rest now I think. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

They seem not to understand that this isn't a personal conflict between them and HouseOfChange... Theres zero acknowledgment that multiple editors in multiple spaces have the same issues with the way they conduct themselves. I also get the feeling from what they've posted on their talk page that they are still more or less ignorant of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOTABILITY despite the massive efforts by other editors to educate them in those areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Had a look at their last ~100 edits, which go back to December 2021, and I don't think a week-long block is going to be enough to prevent disruption in this case. For example:

• December @ Iraqi Turkmen
  • Edit warring: Special:Diff/1058847857, Special:Diff/1058850513, Special:Diff/1059598139, Special:Diff/1060882657, Special:Diff/1061490079
  • For context/completeness, see Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Needs serious attention from a neutral expert and subsequent threads on that page
• January-February @ Pepe Escobar
  • Edit warring: Special:Diff/1067065058, Special:Diff/1069856873 (note the edit summary mentioning "NOTRESUME")
  • This BLP "hit job": Special:Diff/1072698327 (note the addition of a resume, of sorts)
  • Disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Escobar, already discussed here
• February @ Uyghur genocide
  • For context/completeness, their talk page posts in the RFC on Feb 7: Special:Diff/1070365725, Special:Diff/1070369302, Special:Diff/1070491891
  • Special:Diff/1072359973: Adding a {cn} for "Islamophobia" as a motive in the infobox (though it's cited in the body of the article, search for the word) and for "political dissent" (YGTBKM)
  • Special:Diff/1072380941: A few hours later, removing "Islamophobia" from the infobox claiming "can't find any RS in the body that mentions Islamophobia" (again, searching the page for "Islamophobia" yields "Scholars such as Sean Roberts and David Tobin have described Islamophobia and fear of terrorism as discourses that have been used within China to justify repressive policies targeting Uyghurs..." cited to Geopolitics)
  • Edit warring to remove "religious minorities" or "ethnic and religious minorities": Special:Diff/1072352155, Special:Diff/1072381314, Special:Diff/1072566751, Special:Diff/1072651269
  • Special:Diff/1072383082: Removing "independent NGOs, human rights experts" from the lead with the edit summary "not aware of any great number of "independent NGOs", nor "human rights experts" proclaiming it genocide in RSs", although the page, in the body, includes the line "Over two-dozen NGOs that focus on the rights of Uyghurs were involved in organizing the protests" cited to The Nikkei, and the body has an entire section called "Non-governmental organizations and research institutions", and the line "In 2018, UCL human rights scholar Kate Cronin-Furman argued in 2018 that the Chinese state policies constituted cultural genocide" cited to two sources: Foreign Policy, one of the four sources posted to the talk page in the previous bullet point, and Terrorism and Political Violence
  • Special:Diff/1072350870: In this list of four sources on the talk page Feb 17, what is described in the edit summary as "academic journal article" is not an academic journal, it's a think tank publication (Center for Strategic and International Studies), and the European Financial Review link is an op-ed (from what appears to be a non-RS because there is no masthead that I can find)
• The recent unblock requests at User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#February 2022 and subsequent threads on that page are all denial and WP:NOTTHEM, no acknowledgment
• Note the uncollegial and personal edit summaries, aimed at multiple editors on multiple pages: [216]

Other editors shouldn't have to deal with this kind of disruptive editing. Edit warring + incivility + fast and loose with sources + no commitment to change = tban, IMO, but from what topic? Multiple tbans = site ban, IMO. Levivich 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

IP vandalism on Lia Thomas

We’re going to have to protect Lia Thomas from non-registered users (auto-confirmed if they make new accounts). In just the last few minutes: [217] [218] [219] [220]. Three different IPs (in different locations; Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas), four edits, all almost instantly reverted. Yes, in all cases we have put appropriate notices on their talk pages. SkylabField (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved by User:Ohnoitsjamie SkylabField (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, please can somebody look at User:Metoo15? In addition to being one of the vandals on Lia Thomas, they seem to have made nothing but bad edits and are now trying to put defamatory claims about Thomas on their User Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Never made any false claims in ANY edit. Just facts that you choose to not accept. You have your opinion and I have mine. I've kept it to my page, nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metoo15 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indef block Metoo15 - obviously WP:NOTHERE and deadset on WP:BLP violations. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've done nothing to anyone. I was asked to stop editing (Lia) Thomas' page so I did. What I keep on my own page is my own business. I don't edit yours, why continue to edit mine? I'm clearly the victim. -metoo15 11:53, 18 February 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metoo15 (talk • contribs)

I invite people to look at Metoo15's other contributions to other articles as they all seem to be vandalism or nonsense too. e.g. this seemingly homophobic rubbish. --DanielRigal (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That "rubbish" is something he said to me. Again, you make dangerous assumptions about what others do or do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metoo15 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

ArgentineMartin changing figures despite warnings

ArgentineMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a standard edit summary, "Added the real percentage of white people in Argentina" and has done little more than changing figures, mostly at White Latin Americans and White Brazilians, since December. They have been reverted and warned on their talk page by several editors, including a final warning by me[221]. Their last edits: [222] and [223]. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Eggishorn

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

---

He/she is disrupting my edits and harrasing me. Aburh (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement is not disruption or harassment. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Harry19000

Harry19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vast majority of this users edits have been disruptive and reverted, some examples;

8 February 2022 Added Pashto in the lede, no explanation whatsoever.

8 February 2022 Changed the number of Pashto speakers from 40 million to 85 million.

8 February 2022 Randomly added Pashto as one of the spoken Middle Iranian languages, albeit it wasn't spoken till decades later.

10 February 2022 Replaced several (sourced) mentions of "Turkic" with "Pashtun".

13 February 2022 Changed the percentage of Pashtuns from 48% to 50%.

[224] [225] 18 February 2022 - Replaced "Tajik" with "Pashtun".

18 February 2022 Replaced "Sogdian" with "Pashto".

18 February 2022 Removed mention of several ethnic groups residing in the area, replacing them with Pashtuns.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User: Djciejboab and unsourced edits

This user has been persistently adding an unsourced "Contestants" section on Miss Universe Philippines 2022, despite being no announcement of it, adding the fact that the said names on the section are unconfirmed delegates that lack notability, clearly violating WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and many more. I know that they are doing it in good faith but it's actually making the article less Wikipedia-friendly.

I have already mentioned the issue on the article's talkpage but I got no response and the editor kept on doing these destructive edits. And these edits date back as far as January 2022, as seen this edit; with the latest edit of such nature being in this edit.

Djciejboab, since you do not reply at all, I just hope that in here you do just so you can defend your case.

Good day to everyone. Milesq (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Projects IP sockpuppets

...have become rampant lately, redoing others' vandalism and spreading lies when true users try to correct them.

Examples:

• 102.45.220.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 119.95.182.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.166.8.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 179.52.199.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Even after he gets blocked on one IP, he just hops to another everywhere we go, on Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and all of the WMF. I request serious measures be taken against this troll. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounts flocking at Philip II of Macedon

Sockpuppet accounts are flocking continuously at Philip II of Macedon. Any admin attention will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article, which should provide some breathing space. Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, the raise in protection seems to have calmed things down.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

111.92.72.127 - block needs to be extended

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

---

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

Persistent vandalism related to Indian films.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:40

• 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:40 has been adding uncited recording dates to a large number of song articles. I have explained to them that all challengeable material must be cited, but they don't seem to understand this and haven't responded to my talk page warning. Their edit summaries convey that they think they are an expert on the subjects in question when they have provided no supporting evidence for their claims, and they have been going back to several articles and manually reverting edits. This IP was previously warned for disruptive behavior at List of Panic! at the Disco band members in November 2019 and has not edited again until today. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Put a mask on mate!

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

---

• Put a mask on mate! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user Put a mask on mate! had reverted my removal of my edits three times. His first revert was with a false edit summary "Alphabetized users", but it was reverting my edit, second and third reverts were without any summary. Also removing the edit warring [226] the warning from his profile with a personal attack How about you put on a mask mate! not sure what he's trying to say. This spa with less than hundred edits, engaging in edit wars in another articles and similar edit summaries.

Also other reverts on his own talkpage.

1. [227]
2. [228]

reverts

1. [229]
2. [230]
3. [231]

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Beshogur (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Block evasion from Ohio – country music and TV shows

• 2603:6010:8602:5300:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2603:6010:A300:F142:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2603:6010:8640:500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Feb 2019 – ANI report
• Mar 2021 – ANI report

Someone from Ohio has been evading lengthy IP4 blocks by using IP6 addresses. The existing blocks are on Special:Contributions/174.105.188.178 for four years, Special:Contributions/174.105.181.31 by itself and also its container range Special:Contributions/174.105.0.0/16. The IP Special:Contributions/174.105.177.231 was blocked seven times.

This person larded up the List of Soul Train episodes with 250kb of unreferenced text. They have been doing much the same thing at Austin City Limits[232] and a bunch of other articles about TV shows. One of their tell-tale quirks is the addition of future "TBA" episodes.[233]

Can we get some long-term rangeblocks? Note that partial blocks are already in place for the very wide range Special:Contributions/2603:6010:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Reflectivesurface521 posted inappropriate on my talk page

@Reflectivesurface521: posted an inappropriate message (saying to kill myself and "Cunt") on my talk page. I think it is related to his edit on Spider-Man: No Way Home which I reverted. Centcom08 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked, so I think this can be closed, but I'm surprised it was only for a week. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is unprecedented for an otherwise well-behaved editor — especially since they have never edited outside of article space except in this incident and to create their user page — which may explain the short block period. I don't think the edit in question is egregious enough for RD2 — it's similar to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#User:_Jixby_Phillips, only more profane — but it's nonetheless unusually nasty as a personal attack. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged at WP:AN

I was participating in a WP:AN topic-ban appeal from a user. Solavirum had some problems which came to light so withdrew the appeal. Personally, I think I made a few to several mistakes in my comments on that thread. In those situations, the best thing I can do is just disengage because I know I'm not being helpful to anyone.

Okay, then I saw this comment by Laurel Lodged. In it, he claims (without evidence) Solavirum is involved in some scheme by adults who ought to know better which recruits children to engage in Azeri-POV pushing on Wikipedia. If by the off chance, Laurel Lodged is right about anything he said, he should be emailing evidence to Arbcom immediately.

I seriously just spoke with Laurel Lodged about making unfounded accusations which he agreed he'd take in consideration. I'm seriously dumbfounded why Laurel ever would think the above comment was appropriate. Given that, in the Grandmaster WP:AN appeal, Laurel Lodged considers himself uninvolved in these types of disputes, I have serious doubts about his judgement here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot comment on this. It was a closed discussion. I saw it before it was closed. I would not have even mentioned it if Solavirum had not himself mentioned it. What I wrote about had emerged from the murky business. It involved another editor outing Solavirum and his activities in violation of Wiki policy. I don't have access to sealed discussions.That's why I did not mention it. But since he himself brought it up, it's fair comment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In any Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute, Laurel Lodged always unconditionally takes the Armenian side. They can not be regarded as a neutral user in anything Azerbaijani-related. On the other hand, they are not under any topic ban and may comment in these discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: While I am aware they may currently comment in these discussions, I'm sorta concerned about the types of things Laurel Lodged is using them to say about other users (ie. their actions are the result of a conspiracy to use minors to push Azeri propaganda). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit rich of @MJL: to jump in on comments about neutral users. He himself declares that he has a personal page on Azeri Wiki: [234]. In it he has lots of nice things to say about Azeri proverbs. I don't see the proverb about "Those in glasshouses should not throw stones". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Very interesting that you're so busy looking at my azwiki that you somehow managed to completely ignore my enwiki user page which clearly states my pronouns are they/them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

MJL, RE: pronouns — I think you're being too harsh. You can make that correction absent any of this... extra-stuff. I note that many users who wish to clarify their pronouns, do so in their sigs. Maybe consider also doing so if you find being addressed with the wrong pronoun to be upsetting. Otherwise, good faith mistakes should be expected. I remember a few years back, I called Fæ "she," even though I knew they preferred they. It just slipped for whatever reason (as I recall, I apologized and corrected it a few hours later, which Fæ accepted graciously). Anyway, largely a distraction here, is my point. El_C 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

responded on your talk –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Laurel Lodged is also busy at Corofin (parish). After an earlier (March 2021) claim that I used Germano-English (I am Dutch), he is was here again provoking. Laurel Lodged is now inventing a new name for this parish. He found this page and know claims that the correct name is "Corofin (Kilnaboy & Rath)". In fact, it states that the name of the parish is Corofin and an amalgamation of the older parishes of Rath and Kilnaboy. I have pointed him at the books used for writing this article. But that failed to convince him. Even this source, which stated that now bishop Ger Nash "From 1996 he was also assistant priest in Corofin. In 2003, he was appointed as resident priest in Corofin (...)". Also on Corofin, County Clare he makes the same mistake. The Banner talk 23:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my favourite stalker. Hi Banner. Still trying to ignore what the diocesan website says is the name of the parish? Editors should also take a look at Talk:Corofin,_County_Clare#Merger Catholic Parishes. In this instance, The Banner saw an error. Instead of correcting it, he simply reverted it. It remains only partly correct because he has stubbornly refused to use his extensive knowledge of the area to improve the article. In this instance, he seems to be more concerned with making WP:POINTY comments than with improving Wiki IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And more personal attacks! But no, I am not pointy as you, I just try to keep the information correct. The Banner talk 15:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, please don't call a user in good standing a "stalker." That's a sanctionable personal attack. Don't even use WP:STALK, generally. Use WP:HOUND. For the record, I didn't quite understand The Banner's complaint or its relevance to this report, though admittedly, I'm writing/reading in haste. El_C 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in interacting with LL, so I avoid him when I can. But LL repeatedly started editing pages I have started adding incorrect facts. Correcting them means an editwar. I think that behaviour is here under discussion. The Banner talk 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I did watch that WP:AN thread, and while I certainly think some of Laurel's remarks were a bit too much, I do agree with him regarding The Banner's WP:POINTY comments. I've only interacted with him once, and that certainly wasn't a positive one [235]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Response I admit that I got very emotional in my contributions to the two requests from Az editors for unblocking. Although both Solavirum and Grandmaster showed apparent bad behaviour, the language that I used to highlight that bad behaviour could have been softer. I apologise for the intemperate language used. I should have let the facts speak for themselves. I am an Irish national. I don't have any conflict of interest in editing AA articles. I only have tangential interest in Caucasus topics. I suppose as an Irishman, I have a natural affinity to taking the side of the underdog. As a nation, we endured 800 years of occupation by a foreign imperial power, so it's easy for us to empathise with other small nations who have been similarly oppressed. As you'll see from my edit history, I have a wide range of interests: Irish nobility, local Irish geograpghy, central European history, Ancient Rome, Byzantium, church affairs etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - MJL, Laurel Lodged if I'm being honest neither of you are uninvolved. MJL, as I stated in AN, you supported Solavirum in virtually every case against them, whether in AN/I, AE, Topic ban appeals, etc. I can provide all the evidence/diffs, but I think it's redundant since all the people/admins involved including yourself know that, and I made sure to check previous noticeboard threads before my statements.

When it comes to recruitment/canvassing/off-wiki conflict of interest which directly impacts Wikipedia, it's actually rampant in AA, and third party users can confirm this LouisAragon, Kansas Bear. I actually had alot of information gathered from various social media posts/groups with hundreds of thousands of followers (you'd be surprised how shamelessly open everything is and easy to access by simple search), but as I said in my AN statement, I think it isn't appropriate to post it in any of these noticeboards. I made sure to email it to one of the involved admins and archive just in case it gets deleted. There was actually information about Solavirum's off-wiki canvassing and COI as well, so anything Laurel states isn't really far from reality. So this seems to be another lie, but the appeal was withdrawn before an admin could reply. Courtesy pinging Cullen328, El_C. Just my 2 cents. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, this is a subpar comment. First, for the sort of un-evidenced WP:ASPERSION accompanied with I'd provide the evidence, but everyone already knows. Well, I, for one, don't know that MJL leans one way or another in the topic area/s. Maybe instead of pinging me and three other users to confirm, just provide the evidence from the start?

Second, think about how this looks. You open with: MJL, Laurel Lodged [,] if I'm being honest neither of you are uninvolved — then you proceed to only criticize MJL, who is (or would be, at least) on the opposite camp from you. It comes across as partisan. Also, what's so different about MJL's user page at .az and .hy? I don't understand.

Finally, where does this "neither of you are uninvolved" framing even coming from? (There's a layer of irony here in that you could have included yourself, too, in that opening sentence.) And even if, say, "involved," so what? Involved how? Neither are admins at .en, was a discussion involved-closed or something by either? As for the allegations being made (possible WP:CHILDPROTECT matter), these are of a very serious nature and they probably should be directed to ARBCOM or WP:T&S (privately). El_C 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

El C I'll address your concerns. Firstly, I checked previous threads regarding Solavirum, in all of them, MJL was involved: [236], [237], [238], including the appeal yesterday. Secondly, I thought it was already being discussed that Laurel isn't really uninvolved, so I gave my 2 cents regarding MJL and their involvement, which wasn't being discussed.

To your last point regarding irony, forgive me, but I don't see your point really, because It's not like I'm hiding that I'm involved. I literally stated it myself in AN yesterday. I don't know the age of any of the users involved, but I know the seriousness of this that's why I didn't post anything in any of these noticeboards, and emailed (privately) to an involved admin instead. If you want me to email it to ArbCom as well, I can do that. Finally, I pinged you and the admin who received my email as being involved with the case. Hope I addressed your concerns. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You mostly did not address them, no. I hope to be able to elaborate on why that is later in the day (probably evening), but I thought you should know ahead of time. El_C 16:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

El C thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to clear things if I understood you incorrectly. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I have a user page on az.wiki (but don't on hywiki) because there was this thing where Azwiki has some problems with NPOV. I did things like this and this.. and this.. and this... oh and this. I figured having a user page would help people know I don't actually speak the language despite editing on their wiki (I also use it to keep an Azeri phrasebook handy). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, is your .hy user page refactored from .en, or Meta, or some sort of alternate dimension? El_C 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Meta, yeah. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back

I really do not want to start this ANI but looking at their talk page, this user seemed to be involved in an edit war last month and at one point had basically pretended to be an admin by stating to another user that they lost privileges to edit Horse's talk page. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the background here when OP reported at AIV, and suggested they drop it at that venue, after they were advised to come here. Should an admin close this with a polite word right away? I think so. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. Any editor can tell another editor that they are unwelcome on their talk page (except for mandatory notices), it doesn't require admin privileges. And an old edit war? What action are you looking for here? Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I really wanted to know where can I report these types of stuff. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, are you referring to this edit? If so, that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do (see WP:UTP). This seems like pot-stirring to me. There's nothing to report here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, scrap this ANI. I will deal with the user myself instead. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's more than pot-stirring, it seems to be an deliberate attempt to get Horse Eye's Back in trouble/banned as revenge for leaving them a warning about using poor sources [239]. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I check the reliable sources page, Xinhua is in the yellow area of reliable sources. We can dicuss this in the RS noticeboard. When it comes to events held in China, it would be very difficult in finding any good sources. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: did you really just open a vague open ended ANI case against me without notifying me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Propose trout

• Can someone WP:TROUT SpinnerLaserzthe2nd? I don't want any real action taken against them because their heart seems to be in the right place even if they don't really appear to understand some of our underlying policies and guidelines or how to handle disputes. Also don't think they would accept a trout from me in the spirit it was offered and I don't want to escalate the situation. Hopefully they will listen to someone else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Aye, it is a little concerning that someone with 20K edits doesn't appear to be able to use sources properly (or, if the "Mascot" section of 2022 Winter Olympics marketing is anything to go by, understand copyright either). User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, you do need to take care per WP:RS and WP:COPYVIO when you're editing. Please do so. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to do it very carefully and as I mentioned before, Xinhua is apparently in the yellow area or something. Regarding the copyright section, I tired to add the info about the mascots without copying but I failed modify into something that is non-copyrighted. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support (at this stage) trouting. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Xinhua, I think we should dicuss this in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because this is more of a dispute over Xinhua sources. This is becoming more suitable for the RS noticeboard. See you at the noticeboard. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really a discussion to be had, "There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation." and we know that China has an active propaganda *and* disinformation campaign about the Olympics[240]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support trout, if for nothing else failing to notify Horse Eye's Back of this ANI thread despite the giant orange edit notice on this page. Bringing HEB to this page for things that had already been resolved at a different administrative noticeboard in a manner that found no wrongdoing on Horse Eye's end is vexing. I really don't see any reasonable way to conclude from the unsupported and extremely vague allegations brought forth by OP that HEB is doing anything near violating behavioral guideline. I sincerely can't find a way to conclude that this discussion involves urgent incidents and/or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I'd suggest that OP formally apologize to HEB for dragging the user here; scrap this ANI. I will deal with the user myself instead doesn't cut it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

TartarTorte and Dirkbb

Hello. I am here to report the disruptive behavior of TartarTorte (talk · contribs) and Dirkbb (talk · contribs) for disruptively reverting my edits. Let me clarify. I am trying to help Wikipedia in a good way but these two are getting in my way! I will ping their talk and alert them of this. Thank you. --Breast999A (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The reverts of your edits were appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As above. You may be trying to help Wikipedia in a good way but you certainly aren't succeeding. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I considered indeffing the OP as a vandalism-only account, but actually they have made two or three constructive edits, so I've made it one week. How is for example an edit like this even trying to help Wikipedia? Also, they're very "new" but far too adept with templates and wiki lingo to be actually new. An indef comes next. Bishonen | tålk 22:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

And now they've created a sock. Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. That came faster than I thought! Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

User:Levixius and tendentious editing

Levixius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for almost 2 years and has over 700 edits but much of their contributions from the beginning are examples of rather egregious pov pushing and tendentious editing coupled with original research, cherrypicking, poor sourcing, weasel words, blp violations, etc over which they have a tendency to edit war as well. Note that their editing interests are exclusively spread over three DS areas; IPA, Gamergate, Ampol2 (and BLP if you like). Their behavior has not changed over time, they are aware of policies and guidelines but seem least interested in following them so I'm inclined to believe that this is just a case of WP:NOTHERE, some select examples from their last 50 edits are as follows.

• Special:Diff/1069636265 on Azam Khan (politician), they restore a section with the edit summary "vandalism". The section presents as fact that he was responsible for a murder when none of the sources even contain an accusation of a murder against him let alone a conviction.

• Special:Diff/1070020306, same as above.

• Special:Diff/1060032342 on Godhra train burning, removes a sentence attributed to a scholar, cited to two books published by Springer and Harvard University Press by claiming that they are fringe.

• Special:Diff/1062745270 makes an addition on The Red Pill using imdb. This is removed for being unreliably sourced.

• Special:Diff/1062760062 restoration of the same with the edit summary saying they will add a reliable source in the following edit. They never do that but instead follows it up with an edit (Special:Diff/1062760136) which adds a citation for something completely different.

• Special:Diff/1069639102 introduces a line in the lead of Melina Abdullah stating that she support "hate group Nation of Islam". Her support itself is sourced to three primary sources and a secondary one, none of which directly verifies whether she supports Nation of Islam.

• Special:Diff/1069802257, restoration of the above.

• Special:Diff/1068791692, introduces a line on the same page as above, stating that she supports an actor in the BLM protest cited to a combination of primary and unreliable sources (e.g, Twitter, NYPost) and cherrypicks a description of the actor stating that he was once convicted.

• In Special:Diff/1068536558+Special:Diff/1068539286 they introduce a poorly supported section on Students Federation of India. The latter part of the first sentence is not verifiable, in the third sentence the citation does not state that the colleges are "SFI-controlled", the fourth sentence is not verifiable, the first and second paragraph are presented as if they are separate commissions when they are the same, the commission itself is presented as if it solely pertained to the SFI when it was directed as campus politics in general, the eighth sentence is an allegation represented as fact, the entire section also names non-notable victims and accused alike, consists solely of accusations, makes omissions such as the University College unit being folded by the SFI, etc. This is without even going into the sourcing problems.

• Special:Diff/1069605232, restoration of the above.

• Special:Diff/1072222965, restoration of the above.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Troublesome new editor

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

---

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

New account starts and begins CSD tagging and making dubious comments on talk pages. Warned at Special:Diff/1072934739 to which replied "OK, thanks" then fifteen minutes later makes this disruption Special:Diff/1072940646. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Has been indef'd so this can be closed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, sh. El_C 11:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Dwest25 - Vandalism and BLP vios

Dwest25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last few months this account seems to have been on a slow burning spree of vandalism, adding the descriptor "propagandist" to articles on conservative American media figures. Some examples: [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246]. More generally this user seems to have issues with adding unsourced or poorly sourced content to BLP's, they have seven years of warnings about this on their talk page yet are still continuing with the same behaviour, e.g. [247]. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations, to get their attention. If they resume, the next block would be for a whole lot longer. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf68

Aardwolf68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned that professional wrestling is under general sanctions (WP:GS/PW) after an edit war in October.[248][249] His edits remain unproductive; this one is obviously fake and defamatory,[250] others are dubious and unsourced.[251] It's worth noting that there's a discussion on WT:PW regarding how ineffective these sanctions have been since they were implemented four years ago. This particular case seems like an obvious WP:NOTHERE.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The first one you mentioned was eventually accepted, because Becky had turned heel and every time that I or somebody else mentioned it, it was reverted. The third case you mentioned was confirmed in an interview with Shawn, that’s my mistake however for not sourcing it. The fourth case is literally able to be traced to the Survivor Series page, where Bianca Belair survived a 4-1 disadvantage, why is this not mentioned in her article? It’s mentioned that Orton and Ziegler are the only two people to survive a 3-1 disadvantage, so why isn’t Bianca’s surviving a 4-1 disadvantage notable? And the fact that you’re out here trying to attack my integrity when all I want to do is help genuinely hurts, please, for the love of god, do research before you call me out for making edits that are all true. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2A00:1FA0:0:0:0:0:0:0/33

2A00:1FA0:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Block evasion of User:Ikip. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:NadVolum

Over at Talk:Julian Assange a dispute has arisen over the issue of whether or not something should be included. This user has resorted to WP:BLUDGEON, and mocking when asked to actually explain how this is about the subject of the article [[252]]. This is an ongoing issue and represents pretty much their whole style and attitude on the article. They (to be fair) are not alone in the snark. But it is getting frustrating when they derail their own RFC with it. There is zero attempt at AGF from this user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The person helps organise a fund for their defence and the central item is a non-fungible token about their incarceration, it sells for $52m. @SPECIFICO: says it is not clear this is a significant fact of his life, and you say oppose as it is just a random factoid that tells us nothing of relevance, how does this add to our understanding of him or his case? That is simply ridiculous nonsense in my book and I think you should read what a biography is about in biography. How am I supposed to communiciate with that level of debate on practically every discussion? I find assuming AGF very difficult to near impossible with the pair of you. NadVolum (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well by not being sarky for a start, I can do it to you, so I fail to see why you are unable to do it to me? But I have now made my report, and I will let others chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way I have now informed SPECIFICO (as you were meant to) as (as it says at the top of this page) pings are not sufficant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Steven, thanks for the notification. Unfortunately I think that, in order to be effective, this complaint would need to link more of NadVolum's many ad hominem and disparaging talk page comments. It would be a lot of work for you, but I think it would benefit the community to see them and make a decision about this editor's conduct. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I did put a ping there so you'd know. Well let's see your list and perhaps I can trump it and perhaps you can get another topic ban. I don't think NPOV is consistent with your comment in Archive 25 "There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view". Or how about your call on the NPOV page of all places in Archive 91 "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. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war". NadVolum (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

OK some other examples (from the same topic, but not the RFC) [[253]], [[254]] they are not serious violations, but they do represent a general tendency to be dismissive. and a few others [[255]] [[256]]. It goes back further (and indeed I have raised it here before) than this, but they would be stale.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add they launched an RFC after only 10 hours of "discussion", rather than actually discussing it (after deciding that this [[257]] was not worth answering [[258]]).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Was there an earthly chance either you or SPECIFICO would have changed your minds? SPECIFICO insists that just his one objection stops any addition because of the restrictions in force. In the previous RfC which I abandoned because of all the silliness you said "Mmm, that might be a good argument to exclude, we cannot have everything" where a person brought up some case in Australia not involving Julian Assange in any personal way and which wasn't even listed as an important leak and a journalist there described as a bureauratic exercise. Yo helped exclude something that he was personally involved in, has been reported on numerous times since and has been brought up again at his trial and formas a basis for some of the charges against him? You said there "And there is no guideline, policy, or essay that requires us to add any content. Indeed the opposite is (in fact) the case per WP:ONUS, policy says we do not have to add even verifiable material" and yet again supported using WP:SIZE as a reason to exclude practically any additions. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum:, Link, please, to support your statement, SPECIFICO insists that just his one objection stops any addition because of the restrictions in force. ? Folks might think you're quoting something I said. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look and I'm pretty certain now I'm wrong about that, sorry. NadVolum (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes there was, as I have done before. Hell I did not even oppose, I just said I was unsure. I only opposed when the only reasons was given was A. "Well it was 54 million" and B. "And if you can't see why that is about him I can't tell you why it was". In fact, I note that some of the context from this source [[259]] was explicitly opposed by you, a context that might have made the inclusion of this acceptable (who knows, you offered no compromise it was your way or no way).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed the above is an admission you made no attempt to try and convince anyone before launching the RFC. You just assumed it would be opposed and gave up before trying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme and Estonian POV

Shorter version - editor involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, and clear POV edits.

Longer version - H2ppyme (talk · contribs) is involved in edits like this, removing reference to the historical Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this, adding in clear POV of 'Soviet-occupied Estonia' and very concerning POV edit summaries like "Estonia was illegally occupied at the time". A quick look at their contribs shows that myself and many other editors have been reverted, sometimes multiple times. We need a topic ban or block to prevent ongoing disruption. GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [260], [261] and [262]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [263][264] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Rileyplop11 and copyright violations

• Rileyplop11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dartmouth Steam Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rileyplop11 has added copyright text to Dartmouth Steam Railway [265] at least four times; the text was removed and revision-deleted after each addition. They were temporarily blocked on 9 February for copyright violations, and their first edits after the expiration of the block were to re-add the infringing text to the article [266]. DanCherek (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Rileyplop11, your next edit needs to be here, in this thread, and it needs to say that you (now) understand copyright policy, and that you will never do it again. Otherwise I see no option but an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Questionable disruptive edits, possible NOTHERE

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

Bagofscrews has been here only a short time, yet has built a history that suggests possible WP:NOTHERE, or at least that they struggle to understand that basic guidelines actually matter. Some of it could be chalked up to being new, but most concerning, and the reason I'm bringing it to ANI, is a recent series of edits at Eric Schneiderman and their subsequent response to being noticed about it.

He referred to Schneiderman as "Spiderman" in the article on two separate edits. (Their later explanation for this was autocorrect on their device, but it was left in public view for 3 days during which time there were 8 additional edits by the same user - and they were not the one to ultimately change it, so that seems unlikely to me. However, if that is true, it suggests WP:CIR.)

• The initial diff: Special:Diff/1069785459
• A secondary similiar add: Special:Diff/1069895547

During this series of edits, they posted personal contact information for Schneiderman in the article, then changed that to the second diff mentioned above. I reported the diff of the edit containing that information to oversight and it was suppressed, and so I have not included it here.

Due to previous interactions with this user ([267]), I was hesitant to post a warning, but felt the level of severity made it necessary. See interaction here: [268]

Following the notice, they came to my talk page accusing me of "bad faith policing". Interaction here: [269]

There are other edits outside of this that evidence NOTHERE, but the biggest problem is this goes beyond simply calling people names and posting email addresses, and extends into outright denial of personal responsibility for their edits, and an unwillingness to care about specific (and important) guidelines that pertain to a BLP. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User: PianoDan

I am bringing up misconduct by PianoDan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PianoDan Here is the offensive statement: "And the cherry on the top for me is that it was added by the Scott Fruehwald sock puppet IP address." It is on the Talk page for Philip Ewell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_Ewell

Also, PianoDan seems to follow me around Wikipedia (stalk) to make changes, even in areas he doesn't edit on otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.184.26.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)