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

Multiple IP user

This pertains to the following IP addresses which I believe are all from the same user:

• 211.192.49.151
• 61.102.135.60
• 211.48.39.89
• 121.124.86.149
• 121.124.86.186
• 211.196.75.162

The author has been previously instructed times about:

• WP:NOR, WP:Sandbox, IP hopping, and edit warring User_talk:61.102.135.60
• WP:UNSOURCED Lack of citations User_talk:121.124.86.149
• Copying text from Wikipedia without attribution User_talk:211.48.39.89

Examples of copy-pasted phrase dumped into other articles (usually in the leading paragraph) to promote Christianity and colonialism article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=946432852
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adalbert_of_Prague&diff=prev&oldid=945048244
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_of_Querfurt&diff=prev&oldid=945047920
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians&diff=prev&oldid=945044737
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanking_incident_of_1927&diff=prev&oldid=945041727
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Via_Francigena&diff=prev&oldid=945040520
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Martyrs&diff=prev&oldid=945036327
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martyrs_of_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=945036255
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_Martyrs&diff=prev&oldid=945036157

When edits in Christianity and colonialism#Korea were called into question, the author's justification predominantly consisted of theories and unsupported assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=950452403&oldid=948485403

Despite the fact that the Talk page disagreement was not resolved, the author continues to add content without justifying its placement in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=951890917&oldid=951469647

I reached out to the IRC help chat for advice. Upon looking into the situation, the editor in IRC instructed me to post here.

GottaShowMe (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't anything that can be done to stop all of this. Some admins may try to block ranges of IPs, but this vandal will be back. 174.226.128.166 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

An argument could certainly be made for blocking 121.124.0.0/16 without losing much of value, based on the last 12 months of contributions. Gricehead (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a user who is extremely passionate about their point of view and doesn't understand Wikipedia standards such as NOR, citations, citing other Wikipedia pages, etc. I don't think the IP-hopping is intentional, but it makes the user hard to pin down and have a discussion with. Several people from different pages have reached out to the user in the past over edits. In the few actual responses I've seen, it seems the user doesn't grasp what they're doing wrong. I wonder if some kind of temporary block can be used to get the user to slow down and learn more about Wikipedia editing standards. In the meantime, perhaps Christianity and colonialism should be submitted for some kind of review? That seems to be the primary focus on this user's editing. There are whole sections that are uncited. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:61.102.135.60 is back to editing without citations and dropping links in other articles without any respect to whether they fit contextually within the article. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tahc removed some uncited material from Christianity and colonialism. User:61.102.135.60 has reverted Tahc's changes, claiming that the changes were "vandalism." User:61.102.135.60 has not yet responded to any of the April messages on their talk page, included a new message about reverts of uncited material on another page by User:Materialscientist. GottaShowMe (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh hello. It seems there is a conspiracy theory going on here. What I can say is that my IT skills do not extend to IP addresses - in fact I don’t own a computer. I do not register for an account because I do not generally edit or use Wikipedia. That hopefully also indicates that I do not feel strongly about any particular issue on Wikipedia - the organization has had many defections over the years, a few scandals of companies editing their own or client pages, and therefore Wikipedia has been much reduced in credibility to me since it’s been included in Wikileaks, if I remember correctly. The Christianity and colonialism article happened to correspond to what I was researching for my professional work. If my edits and references are in any way lacking and decrease, instead of increasing, quality of the article, and if other users are invested in the subject, please make incremental edits to the quality of the article instead of deleting half of it and then moving around whole blocks, without editing, to purposefully harm the very credibility of the topic. The two complainants have not provided a single constructive edit, or reference, or engaged in a discussion on the topic, for the entire 10-year existence of the article in question.

I am becamain’t aware that I am touching some strong religious feelings by even editing the Christianity and colonialism article. Well, guys - if someone found a few books, all published by reputable scientific publishers, over more than 50 years, elaborating on the topic, what do you do? You go and delete half of the entire article, including references.

Firstly, the discussion about article and its inclusion in something called “unimportant articles on Christianity” indicates strong feelings about its very existence, and that was years before my edits. Interestingly, GottaShowMe did not respond to the response provided to them on the Korea part of the article but came to complain here. His lack of edit history is a little suspect - it seems he has been activated solely by the Christianity and colonialism article.

Meanwhile, Tahc’s Wikipedia edit history indicates a possible American Evangelical Christian background - he seems to have made hundreds of edits on Christianity and Jewish kings, and on that alone. His personal profile seems to summarize his readings of the Bible, chapter by chapter. The edits Tahc made equal vandalism - he removed properly sourced and scientifically backed parts of the article, after which he rearranged article in such a way (mixing Latin America and Jesuits) that can only be thought to have been designed to confuse readers. He also seems to have used editing techniques that made reversals more difficult than they generally are, with manual work required. He also confuses colonialism and colonies (as per their Wikipedia definitions).

I would like to encourage our (extreme?) Christian friends to dig into scientific literature and provide any missing references, if they feel any are missing. Scientific material (almost invariably published by the most prestigious publishers like Princeton) has been provided and referenced to prove beyond reasonable doubt interplay between Christianity and colonialism in contexts such as the Baltics, Korea, Japan and India (just to refer to the most recent edits as per edit history page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.102.135.60 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As someone not at all involved in this dispute... yikes. That's a lot of personal attacks and unfounded allegations you've made, 61.102.135.60. Other editors have tried to steer you in the right direction by pointing out our rules & guidelines, but it seems you've decided your way is the right one and you have no intention of listening.

For the record, and before more accusations are made, I'm not Christian. I am in fact, atheist. You're just in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to direct the admins to this user's recent response on the talk page, which was added today. Continuation of personal attacks and unfounded allegations.

> Interestingly, GottaShowMe did not respond to the response provided to them on the Korea part of the article but came to complain here.

With all due respect, User:61.102.135.60, you have mixed up the order of events. Notices of this incident were sent out 21 April 2020 to the talk pages for ALL of the IP's you use. Your response on the talk page dates to today, 28 April 2020. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks (accusing other users of clear bias) instead of addressing their critiques.

Furthermore, the burden of proof for adding content is on the writer of that content, not the readers (WP:BURDEN). For example, on your talk page, you tell User:Materialscientist that "instead of reverting you could have looked it up yourself on Google News" in response to their removal of your uncited material. It is not another editor's job to look up citations for you, or citations that provide "counterfactuals" to your uncited material.

GottaShowMe (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange edits by IP

I just reverted two bizarre edits by 174.197.198.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Although those are the only two edits in their history, in the past, edits like these tend to accumulate under dynamic IPs depending on each time they login, so I suspect there’s a lot more of them out there. I seem to recall there being a way to search for additional IPs in this range, but I’ve forgotten how to do it. Could someone look closer into this? I’m concerned there’s a lot more that need reverting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Viriditas, on the contributions page you can append /24 and search again to find everything by 174.197.198.X. There are other possible numbers (for example, WHOIS says that that IP belongs to a /18 range, which is pretty big), but /24 is usually a good starting point if you don't know anything about the IP range. creffett (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(for reference: I clicked the WHOIS link in the IP info you linked above, and the asn_cidr line says 174.197.192.0/18, which tells me that I can find anything from the range this IP belongs to by appending a /18 to the IP. There's a lot more technical detail on what these magic numbers I'm throwing at you mean, and I can tell you more on your talk page if you're interested, but this is the information you actually need to get the job done) creffett (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link 174.197.198.78/18. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you could block the /18 w/o causing collateral damage. I would warn the user adequately. Two users-- and then anon block briefly if need be with account creation permitted. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything worth even warning for. These edits are not strange, but adequately explained and otherwise cromulent. This type of thing could be avoided if the content was properly referenced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. As I explained in my reverts, the adequate explanations you refer to were false. The information was neither an interpretation, nor an opinion, nor a peacock term as the original IP claimed. In the past, we’ve seen these types of strange edits before, from users who think they can make up a reason for deleting blue sky content, that in 99% of cases, is not unsourced as you claim, but fully sourced and explained in parent or daughter articles. Often times during the article creation process, duplicate content that is properly licensed gets moved around from article to article, with or without sources. I can’t say that’s what happened here, nor could I speculate as to who originally added the material without examining the page history, but this information is widely known by those familiar with the topic, which is why the edits appeared so strange to me. Per your excellent suggestion, I have gone back and made explicit the sources in at least one of the articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand much about ranges, but remember if you're blocking a big range to ask the checkusers (WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests) to see if there are registered users editing from the range, lest you accidentally block one or more good-faith contributors. Doesn't apply, of course, if you're doing an anon-only block. Nyttend (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tell that to the two stewards who separately caught me up in sitewide blocks in 2018 without checking for possible collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how "and the musicians develop the concept through their use of space" is not an opinion, even if it's the opinion of those who created the thing. But whatever I guess. BTW, could someone explain to me why we're talking about the edit's of an IP, with no real idea of how sticky it is, on ANI where notification is required, as per all those big warnings and the IP's talk page was a red link until I informed them? Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent question. Here is the original edit. The content in question was originally added by another IP. In that context, it originally said, "It is a concept album, aimed at creating an oceanic atmosphere. Many of the song titles refer to marine biology or the sea, and the musicians develop the concept through their use of space and almost tidal dynamics." This is not an ideal paraphrase of the sources, but it is essentially correct. In this context, the phrase “use of space”, is a synonym and paraphrase of the common term “improvisation”. As we know, Miles Davis’ foray into modal Jazz was characterized by his use of space, his improvisational harnessing of the power of silence, the space between the notes, and Hancock, on this album, carries this tradition forward. The cited sources support this in many different ways. Blumenthal, as only one example, writes, “an aura surrounding the melodic material and the rhythms, particularly the ebb-and-flow washed of Tony William’s drums, that sustain the nautical conceit.” This aura, this melodic material, and this ebb and flow, is the hallmark of the wide space Davis popularized and that Hancock uses to great effect. Again, not a perfect paraphrase, but the IP got it right. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I would advise against blocking the /18 range. The /18 range contains 16,384 IPs (belonging to Verizon Wireless customers), and it seems like there was little abuse coming from this IP range. The only vandalism I can see from is this edit, coming from one IP. No need for blocking 16k+ IPs. --MrClog (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks

Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ashton 29 is becoming increasingly problematic with his editing at multiple articles, reverting to blatant personal attacks on several occasions and edit-warring to get his preferred images into articles even when discussions have shown no consensus to include them. His edits have not been clear vandalism and his edit-warring has been drawn out over time so WP:AIV and WP:AN3 don't seem appropriate venues for reporting his actions but I have given him several warnings, including a final one and yet he still persists.

Back in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, he proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after his addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, he restored it to the article in February this year,[1] but that was reverted by an editor citing the 2015 discussion. Ashton 29's response was to edit-war the image back into the article, acknowledging the 2015 discussion when he said "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people" in his edit summary.[2] It's ironic that he mentioned that the image "is more populated with people" as that was one of the issues that resulted in rejection of the image. This time I removed it stating "The discussion is still valid until another discussion overturns it. That there has been some time since you failed to have this image used doesn't mean you can force it back into the article.",[3] and Ashton 29 let the matter be until recently when he again restored it, this time without any edit summary.[4] It was immediately removed,[5] but, less than 2 hours ago the image was again restored without explanation.[6] Ashton 29 has made no attempt to open a new discussion about this image on Talk:Australia and seems content to continue trying to sneak the image back into the article. I raised this matter on his talk page 5 days ago but there has been no response other than the edit-warring.

Ashton 29 has done this sort of thing at other articles. For example, his addition of a montage to the infobox at Hobart was reverted,[7] and his response was not to open a discussion but to simply edit-war, telling the other editor to "take it to the talk page",[8] even though the burden is his to gain consensus for its inclusion once it was opposed. Ashton 29 is strong proponent of montages and has been involved in attempts to include a montage at Sydney. A montage was proposed for this article last year but was opposed for various reasons. While discussion was still open in March, Ashton 29 added his own montage to the article.[9] That montage included images that had been rejected in previous discussions so it was reverted. (It shouldn't have been added while the discussion was underway anyhow!) Unfortunately, during that discussion another editor decided to resort to makes personal attacks so Ashton 29 decided he would too.[10] I removed it and warned him.[11] This obviously had no effect as several weeks later on April he added another, this time attacking both HappyWaldo and me.[12] I removed that one and warned him,[13] but his response was to restore the attack. Another editor subsequently made comment about the attacks.[14]

Since then, Ashton 29 has had what can best be described as a temper tantrum, which includes encouraging another editor to join him,[15] (which seems a bit of meatpuppetry to me) and making a post that was essentially whining.[16] He then edit-warred at Hobart and restored his image to Australia as explained above. The final warning that I left on his talk page was posted 5 days ago but the edit-warring at Hobart and Australia, as well as the meatpuppetry have all occurred since then. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You singled out me and a few other editors who don't share the same opinions as you, for "personally attacking you". Now I'm not going to speak on behalf on everyone involved, but not once have i targeted, harassed or attacked you in a personal manner. I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress and if you can't accept criticism, then I'm sorry that's your fault, not mine. I'm also not going to sit around and watch you bully other editors into submission, just to get your way of controlling all edits being made to your own personal preferences.- Cement4802 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason I invited you to this discussion was only because of this post on your talk page made by Ashton 29, which I mentioned above, and for no other reason. If you think it was because of personal attacks you must have a guilty conscience about something that you said. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me like the two edits you cite as personal attacks are uncivil, but do not constitute personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The latter part of the comment "I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress..." from Cement4802 looks like a personal attack to me. From Ashton 29, I've copped "You can't keep peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse...get real." It wasn't the first time I've had something like that directed at me. A comment directed at another editor that uses the words "pathetic" and "get real" is obviously not conducive to polite discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, both the Cement and the Ashton comments appear to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, even though he is fully aware of this discussion, Ashton 29 continues edit-warring instead of discussing. At Sydney, before I opened this discussion, he made a number of changes, one of which included replacing an image with what I believe is an inferior one. I reverted the image addition with the explanation "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred."[17] I should note that I made a mistake here and reverted all of his changes instead of just the image change so Ashton 29's subsequent reversion was quite appropriate given the circumstances. I then proceeded to revert the correct revision with an apology in the edit summary.[18] Instead of then discussing the image, Ashton 29 simply restored the image.[19] This is typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It really does appear that Ashton 29 does not care any more. Even though he knows there is no consensus to add a montage to the Sydney infobox, he just added one with the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait."[20] no attempt to discuss in the existing, still active talk page discussion, just add it to the article, which is clearly disruptive and he hasn't even bothered participating here. I think he just assumes that he is going to be blocked so he doesn't care. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much that I don't care, or that I "know there's no consensus", it's more that the consensus is really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors, namely AussieLegend himself, HiLo, and HappyWaldo. If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it. But because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. In fact, that's what you do. As others have pointed out, most of what I said are hardly personal attacks. They're uncivil, perhaps, but so is your constant denial of other people's valid contributions a montage on Sydney's page. You can't claim ownership and you fail to reach compromise. If you do not compromise, where is discussion going to get me? You've driven User:Cement4802 to give up on contributing to Sydney's page which is totally unfair. It appears you want me blocked, or afraid, so you do not have an opposition to the way you want a page to look. This is essentially an attack itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it - You do know. There is an active discussion on the talk page about the montage that you have posted to just recently. You know about WP:BRD and yet you keep adding a montage while it is under discussion.

because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. - Repeatedly adding the montage when its inclusion has been opposed and is under discussion is the very definition of edit-warring.

It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. - Edit warring doesn't require constant reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashton 29 tells us just above that the arguments he doesn't like are "really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors..." Recycled? That's a strange description. I would happily have mine described as repeated, because they have never been refuted, but recycled is obviously getting personal, and pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that both Ashton 29 and AussieLegend are labelling everything any opinion they disagree with as a personal attack. I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low. All comments I have made are simply critical comments of Wikipedia related actions. I have zero interest in making comments about your personal attributes. I don't know any of the editors beyond Wikipedia, and nor do I care. All of the excuses you two make have been refuted time and time again, yet they're still relentlessly churned out and used to block out any discussion or ideas that you two disagree with - Cement4802 (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Was that post really meant to be about Ashton 29 and AussieLegend? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: When somebody specifically names another editor and casts aspersions, that's a personal attack. I took great pains to point out on your talk page that you were only tangentially related to this discussion but you immediately took that to be claiming that you had personally attacked me, resulting in the rant above.[21] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack. So is the last sentence above, right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend I'd argue that your assumption that Ashton 29 "doesn't care" and that "he assumes that he's going to be blocked" falsely undermines and discredits his actual actions and credibility, without any evidence. That in itself constitutes as a personal attack. Also, HiLo48 describes the comments of Ashton 29 as "silly" which is again unconstructive and a personal attack. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Describing one's comments as "silly" is not a personal attack. El_C 10:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C Neither is the claim that someone is "holding up progress" I don't see you refuting that claim. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"[H]olding up progress" is also not a personal attack. El_C 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I reckon it is. What does it add to the discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: There's a difference between unconstructive comments and personal attacks. MrClog (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree they can be different things. But let's look at the comment. It's directed at particular individuals. It's contains no explicit criticism of the contents of any the comments from those individuals, but it's certainly a negative comment, implying that those editors aren't interested in progress. That's a personal attack in my book. If it's not one in yours, it must be just outside the definition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: If we look at the "letter of the law" (in this case Wikipedia policy), one form of a PA would be "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". An accusation is "[a] charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong". Holding up progress is not per se "wrong"; there are (many) ways in which one could legitimately hold up progress. But if we look at the spirit of the policy, I think it is clearer that it is not a PA. The reason we disallow PAs is that they harm the editing environment. This discussion itself is pretty heated, and therefore, it is almost inevitable that accusations regarding conduct will be brought up, some without evidence. I would say that relatively light accusations - like "holding up progress", assuming that is meant as a negative thing per se - do less damage to the environment than calling them out and accusing the other party of making personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

When you look at Ashton 29's recent edits there are a number of conclusions that you can come to, the most benign of which was that he doesn't care and expects to be blocked. Persistently adding content that he knows to be controversial, failing to discuss his edits knowing that he needs to discuss them as they've been opposed previously, and more than once, what would you call it? Of course he has now explained his reasons and it's now looking more like he is being deliberately disruptive, in my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why I avoid editing Australian topics like the plague. Classic case of the small group of regular editors on a specific topic who appear to feel ownership over the topic so are extremely difficult to reach a consensus with. This infects every issue, great or extremely trivial. AussieLegend attempting to have an editor sanctioned for calling out this behaviour, in particular for describing HiLo48 as 'holding up progress', is quite frankly disgusting, particularly considering the many, many, many, many reports concerning HiLo48. Cjhard (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

How is the plague an Australian topic? There's coronavirus everywhere. EEng 05:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn't coronavirus everywhere, and I have a four (five, where does the time go?) year old discussion as the sole basis for this assertion. If you think this isn't the most productive way of engaging with other editors, I'll take you to AN/I! Cjhard (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: You might have been caught by a language issue. I believe that Cjhard meant "I avoid editing Australian topics like [I avoid getting] the plague", not that the plague was an Australian article. I can't find any evidence of Cjhard ever editing Sydney or its talk page and I really don't give anything else he said any credibility, especially the claim that coronavius isn't everywhere given it has affected 195 countries and killed 200,000 people, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, EEng, most Australians do have a sense of humour. --Cjhard (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No doubt a necessity for survival in that arid and desolate antipodean wasteland. EEng 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you. Cjhard (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This Australian had a good chortle. --Blackmane (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

EEng is no doubt aware that Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. You can't trust any of them, me included, I guess. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ashton 29 continues his problematic editing, this time resorting to blatant canvassing. I found out that he had started a discussion at WP:DRN about the Sydney article. Despite the clear instructions that involved editors must be notified, Ashton 29 only notified 2 of the 9 listed editors and those two just happened to be editors who share his POV. At User talk:Cement4802 the notification was added to a discussion titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" while at User talk:PhilipTerryGraham his notification was I am one of many users who agree with you in that Sydney's page needs a montage. It's a major global city yet it looks like a small town with just one lede montage image. I liked the one you put forward in January. Anyway, I'd like to hear from you here.[22] That is so far from neutral as to be clear and obvious canvassing. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:DRN has just been closed by an Admin, for the above reason and for some others. How much longer can Ashton 29 continue to waste the time of other editors and make personal attacks without consequence? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question given there's clear evidence of edit-warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, forum-shopping and canvassing, all recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep this up, and I'll consider proposing a boomerang block for stonewalling discussions. I wonder how many diffs will be found, how many editors will be supportive? Cjhard (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I just looked up WP:Stonewalling. It tells me "When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required". I find that my arguments against change in that article are simply ignored, rather than discussed, so I still regard them as substantive objection. It can't be called stonewalling. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48False, all of your claims have been refuted time and time again. Repeatedly bringing them up again is unconstructive and disruptive to edits and progress. Please take into consideration that just because you personally believe something is correct, it doesn't actually mean the wider community finds it correct either. - Cement4802 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"... all of your claims have been refuted time and time again." No. They haven't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with HiLo48. The arguments have certainly been argued against but as anyone can see, "refuted" they have not. Please also note that improper use of warning templates, such as the warning that you left on my talk page today for no apparent reason,[23] is highly inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashon 29's problematic editing continues, this time at Talk:Sydney: Ah, Merbabu. Interesting you've come out of the woodwork after a solid (curious) reprieve from editing. Suddenly, you want to stake a claim here and oppose an article you have little interest in? Ridiculous. Cabal doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an orchestrated attempt led by AussieLegend and Merbabu to shut down any changes or progress to the page. AussieLegend, I feel as though you may take this to heart and accuse me of PA again. Which it isn't. It is incredulity at the fact that suddenly all of these editors who I hardly see are suddenly coming out in droves saying they don't want a montage. Where were most of you six months ago? A year? There's no transparency here, it's all shoddy rubbish, because User:Merbabu has even gone and conducted some paltry "Oppose" vs. "Support" list, but very conveniently left off a bunch of users names from the "Support" list. I see what you did, buddy. Sly, scheming behaviour.[24] (Note the edit summary) I won't quote the unsupported allegations of canvassing at Cement4802's talk page.[25] This editor just seems unable to play nicely with others. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by JzG

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

---

Note: This was reposted here after mistakenly being posted at AN3.

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

In July 2018, language was added to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality by Contaldo80 that included the phrase "desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, Contaldo changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk and Contaldo, myself, and a third editor all agreed to use the word Eucharist. Stop the Church was then spun off in January 2020, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, Contaldo changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first.

In the new discussion, Contaldo requested a third opinion. That brought in several new editors, including Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and JzG. On the talk page, Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and I all favored using the word "Eucharist." Contaldo changed his mind and now prefers wafer, and JZG has offered several other suggestions, but opposes "Eucharist." It appears to me that there is a preference for Eucharist (four users supporting, two opposed) and perhaps a weak consensus for it. At best, there is no consensus. As I read WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means we should "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, that means using the word Eucharist.

As part of a series of edits which otherwise improved the article, JZG offered a new formulation for the disputed sentence. In JZG's world, his version is now the consensus version and I have to gain consensus to make any changes. He continues to base his edit warring on the claim that "Eucharist" is a "Catholic term of art," even after a majority of editors have explicitly rejected this assessment. While I was obviously OK with the old version, I was mostly OK with his new language, except for the fact that it didn't include the word Eucharist. As a gesture of good faith I kept most of what he said, but reinserted that one word. JZG reverted.

On April 19th, after he again accused me of making a contested edit and needing consensus for it, I responded by saying "You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me." Two days went by where JZG was active elsewhere on Wikipedia but not on this article. Since he did not respond, I assumed he understood that I was correct. I reverted back to his language with my tweak. JZG swooped right back in and reverted to his preferred language.

Discussion continued on talk. I again pointed out to him that it was him, not me, who was making a contested change and that NOCON says we leave the original language in place in these situations. His response was that "The status quo ante argiument (sic) does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given." I asked him where I could find that policy and he pointed me to WP:ONUS. As I said to him, I don't find anything like that in ONUS.

JZG then again accused me of being the one to make a disputed edit. When I asked him to show me the consensus against Eucharist and again where it says to ignore NOCON after "after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given," he again went silent for two days. After another 48 hours where he was active on the project but not on this article, I reverted back to the last stable language. Only then did he become active on this article again, reverting to his preferred language. He also ignored, again, my questions about where there was a consensus against Eucharist and where it said to ignore NOCON.

Tied up in all of this is a second disputed sentence in the lede. It is partially in dispute because it uses the word Eucharist as well, but also because I think it should remain in the lede, as it has since the article was created, whereas JZG does not. Without a consensus one way or the other (and with considerable sourcing to show that it was a major controversy during and after the event), my position is that it should stay. Again, after days of silence on talk I have readded the sentence, only to see JZG revert.

I have offered on multiple occasions to work on language on talk, rather than edit war. I've even gone so far as to paste the text into talk so that we could work on something there. Those offers have all been ignored.s

Also, while it is not directly related to his edit warring, JZG has continued to use language that he knows is offensive to Catholics, and continues to refer to me as one even after I told him I don't identify as a Catholic or any other religion on the project. Indeed, a review of my edits will show significant contributions to a number of articles about non-Catholic religious organizations and even more to secular topics. As pointed out to him, though, I do find acts of sacrilege and language that is deliberately offensive to any religious group to be beyond the pale. I think he owes Catholics and all tolerant minded people an apology.

Finally, to preempt JzG's favorite defense of turning things around on me, yes, I was once topic banned. I have apologized, abided by the terms of it, tried to make amends, and tried to improve my editing. For those times where I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize once again. It in no way, however, excuses edit warring. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is bizarre. It raises the question whether Slugger O'Toole's TBAN was too limited. He has been aggressive with weakly sourced material at Harvard Extension School, an article that's experienced some of the same problems we saw at Knights of Columbus. It doesn't surprise me to see this occurring at other articles JzG is trying to clean up. I'm not familiar with those and can't comment further on the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Slugger O'Toole repeatedly reverts to his preferred version of an article that contains a specific term of art used by some Catholics but has to be pipe-linked because it is not the common meaning of the word. I have tried numerous versions of compromises, his "compromise" is to insist that his preferred term of art must be used, and must be in the lead. He reverts from several different attempts to produce wording that more closely reflects the sources and removes issue of ambiguity between religious terms of art.

SPECIFICO mentions the TBAN. Here's the debate. Same prolix style. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025 § Knights of Columbus

Slugger O'Toole was topic-banned from Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for similar WP:OWN behaviour. It seems that when editing articles on his religion, harmony is achieved solely by Slugger O'Toole getting his own way. Needless to say, the constant reverts to reinsert his preferred content and refusal to accept any version of policy that does not encompass his preferred content going in, which were also a hallmark at the KofC article and a major contributor to the topic ban, are wearing and cause tempers to fray. Guy (help!) 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Even a casual review of the article history of article will show plenty of your edits which I have not reverted. I've praised you for improving the article repeatedly, including on your talk page. We've also seen a majority of other editors reject your wording, including Drasser who said "...JzG is being obtuse by trying to ignore the significance of the action through a poor vocabulary choice. It's not a "term of art," it's a religious practice." I'll also remind you, again, that it is you who has made a contested change to stable language, against consensus, not me. If a new consensus forms, I will gladly abide by it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This would be the same Drassow that referred to a cardinal as His eminence and likes to drop casual anti-Semitism on the regular. This is the person you choose to back you up?AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool dude, but eminence is still the correct way to address a cardinal, and adding a source is anti-semetic? Sounds like some laughable strawmen to me mate, and don't invalidate the correct vocabulary to use. Eminence is the correct way to address a cardinal just as the Eucharist is the correct way to refer to the item at hand. Drassow (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I believe this is my first interaction with Drasser, as it is with you. I am not aware of either of your past histories. As noted above, however, he is not the only other editor who holds this position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully this does not have to result in a new topic ban or an expansion of an old topic ban. Is Slugger O'Toole willing to walk back the behaviors that led to the original Knights of Columbus topic ban? Michepman (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Michepman, As I have said repeatedly, if a new consensus forms then I will respect it. I am not looking for trouble, only for longstanding consensuses to be respected. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• While I'm genuinely confused by the constant insistence by Guy that the simple term "Eucharist" is somehow verboten and must unconditionally be replaced by "wafer" or something else, editorial opinions of others be damned, I also don't understand what exactly is being advocated for in this post on this noticeboard. What's been going on appears to be a heated but unfortunately rather standard debate on how to phrase matters on an article about a political protest, which inherently will be controversial. This is clearly not WP:OWN behavior as other editors take both Guy's side in the debate as well as the position of Slugger O'Toole. I'd like to see a conclusion reached that's fair, but that likely requires more eyes by different editors on the page and not administrative efforts to sanction specific people. At least, that's my opinion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  CoffeeWithMarkets, I don't say it's verboten - in fact I added Eucharist in the Catholic Church as a "see also" because it does provide a specific perspective. I have explained on the Talk page why the specific phrase "desecration of the Eucharist" is confusing for a non-Catholic audience and indeed for a lot of Catholics. The Eucharist is generally seen in non-Catholic churches as the entire service of communion, and the protest was a disruption of this, so disruption of mass AND desecration of the Eucharist looks redundant unless you immediately read Eucharist in a specific way that most people simply don't.

  I'd note that I have tried a fair number of alternative formulations, and Slugger rejects all of them. Guy (help!) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  CoffeeWithMarkets, My point is that there was a consensus. JzG made an edit that went against the consensus and was reverted. Instead of trying to develop a new consensus on talk, he simply keeps reinserting his preferred language back into the text. That seems like a classic case of edit warring to me. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The type of belittling seen in this edit summary - here - is harmfully antagonistic. We shouldn't be using language like that. We rightfully wouldn't tolerate editors referring to the Kaaba as a magic box. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that edit summary is weirdly antagonistic and doesn't reflect super well on JzG. Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that JzG's general attitude through the discussion is belittling and discriminatory: "Your obsession with the magic bread is becoming tiresome" can be construed as harassment of those who think differently. Sanctions should be imposed. XavierItzm (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested - the discussion is continuing on the article's talk page [26]. This ANI thread might no longer be necessary Steve Quinn (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, While I am truly appreciative of all the new eyes looking this article, I am also a bit confused. It seems to me as if this is a clear cut case of edit warring. JzG made a bold edit against a perhaps weak but longstanding consensus. He was then partially reverted. Instead of coming to talk, he instead just reverted back to his preferred version. Multiple times. If that's not edit warring, could someone please explain to me why not? I am genuinely asking here. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, it takes at least two to edit war, and in this case two were involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, Fair enough. Maybe I was in the wrong as well. If I was, I would appreciate it if someone could point out where I erred so as to be able to avoid doing it again. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can an administrator please look into Slugger O'Toole - frankly I think his editing behaviour is not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia. He has been coming into conflict with a range of editors (including administrators) on a range of topics. I honestly don't think he's learnt anything from Knights of Columbus and has not altered his behaviour. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

Let's solve the crux of the problem. I propose the @Slugger O'Toole: is banned from adding article content sourced to primary sources or sources closely related to the article subject without prior consensus on the article talk page. This applies to any article on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, That's not what is at issue in this case so I fail to see how it would solve the crux of any problem. Also, I wasn't going to address it, but I will now point out that Harvard Extension School gained Good Article status with largely the same sources as it has today. The independent editor who certified it as a GA didn't raise a single concern about the sources. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OK I'll put a notice on the talk page there and we can get some more views from that article's editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole (former user name Briancua) has added over 50 assertions to the Harvard Extension School article that are sourced to 100th anniveresary commemorative volume published by the Extension School and written by its Dean. That's not the only such reference, just one that's easily identified. The article is full of promotional or UNDUE content of this kind. It's the same thing that happened at the Knights of Columbus article. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Yes, I did so seven years ago. I think I did so with care, but have already offered to work with you to improve them. I'll ask again: would you like to work on it with me? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am only here because I see you making the same mistakes to this day, even after the Knights of Columbus TBAN. And apparently you think the Harvard Extnsion School article desrved the GA, even loaded with UNDUE promotional self-sourced content? I looked at the review. If I thought anything would change without a sanction, I certainly would not have proposed it. That's all I'll have to say here. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I suppose that's your prerogative, but I'd rather work collaboratively to improve the article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proposed excessive sanction is not even tangentially related to the issue at hand. Nice try, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? - What exactly is the point of bludgeoning a user for taking a position held by multiple editors in a content dispute? Where does this notion that it will somehow magically stop the dispute come from? Why is our time being wasted by this "proposal"? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, it's rather astonishing to have this general discussion constantly pretending as if we can't go and look pages ourselves. It's not as if it's difficult. We have eyes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Snowball proposals that have the sole purpose of intimidating the targeted editor are sadly over-tolerated here. Cjhard (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I needed that!

-EEng

We really need some kind of wiki-SLAPP rule. Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm an uninvolved user but this seems like a ridiculous sanction. There's clearly no consensus, so why are we not following WP:NOCON and sticking with the original wording of the article? I have to agree with Cjhard, this seems like a sad attempt at intimidation that'll do nothing to solve the actual problem. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not involved, either, but a wide-ranging topic ban on the OP for acts unrelated to the current issue is the wikipedia equivalent of driving a tack with a twenty-pound maul. Come back with a suggestion that addresses the issue at hand, please. --loupgarous (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Also not involved, and I think the idea of sanctions against Slugger here is pretty ridiculous. Overall, I think JzG has been unnecessarily hostile to Slugger and to the concept of religion in general, but that Slugger appears to be overstating their claim to have consensus for their edit, as there's currently a section on the talk page where editors are basically split on the change. I feel like the thing to do here is for everyone to take a breath and calm down, and then hold an RfC for the proper wording. [failing that, I'd say default to the original wording of "Eucharist" but that doesn't seem like a great solution overall] Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Also not involved. This proposal seems to have come out of left field and is not related to the original discussion. Also, Slugger has presented a reasonable argument (following NOCON) whereas Jzg has been making offensive remarks - perhaps as a way to be intimidating. Jzg's views in this matter do not speak for everyone. I think this proposal for a topic ban should be closed immediately because it is irrelevant and off topic regarding this discussion. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Disruptive editing by Pincrete in a MH17 article (Second request)

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently I made my first AN/I request regarding disruptive editing by Pincrete. It was closed without action. I kindly ask to check on this Pincrete's reverting. He claims that the reason is that the transcript of the Russian MoD briefing "was the primary referred to". Remarkably, yesterday, he had no complaints about those facts and that primary source. Moreover while editing the article he was referring to the DSB report which is a primary source as well! But he didn't delete those facts cited from a primary source (DSB report) [27][28][29]! Check, please, also the in-article "Background" section which is written using a primary source. I believe that at least the above mentioned disruptive deletion is one of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. So why is he allowed to use primary source (DSB report) and at the same, in his opinion, I'm not allowed to use primary source (Russian MoD report/transcript)? Please take action, because, in my opinion, his actions go beyond the constructive resolution of disputes.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It was closed as no one thought there was any action to take, relaunching this will just look disruptive. As well as you have a DRN running on the same subject (just different users) [[30]]. I get strong vibes of not here did not here that and forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Afaics OP tried to insert OR/fringe in the MH17 article and is now accusing others who keep to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well those on behaviour as those on content. See also WP:FTN#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Suggesting boomerang for WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed I think (as they did at one time edit other topics) a TABN, its clear in this area they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Oh dear me! I request an immediate close to this overtly frivolous piece of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Here is the DRN which Александр Мотин filed today. And here the total-waste-of-everybody's-time ANI brought against me barely a week ago. Talk page will show that I've been doing my best to help this editor, despite neither their English, nor their mastery of policy being very sound.

Should anyone want a more detailed response on any point, please ping. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DRN request was filed on a different subject. I insist that Pincrete's edits were disruptive. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Because he is not, your first diff the source is BBC News, you do understand what wp:primary means?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually in the first diff, both sources (already in place btw), were secondary. My main change there is to tale out a paragraph break in order that the various findings 'run together'. I also added 'Ukrainian' to clarify which authorities were responsible for closing the airspace ... which is ironical since the main thrust of Александр Мотин's editing is that Ukr is at fault. Other changes in other diffs (like changing 'revealed' to 'stated', 'aerooplane' to 'airplane'} are so standard, that you'd think Александр might thank me, not report me. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I also kindly ask administrators to pay attention to the fact that a group of opposing editors attacks me on many pages at once (for instance, on the article's talk page, on my personal talk page [31][32], on the FTN page [33], on the DRN page). It seems to be a WP:CTDAPE case. Please also pay attention to what Pincrete calls my edits "almost gibberish", "Kremlin-ophilic" and talks about "my motives" [34]--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, your motives are indeed questionable, I suggest you read wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The following sources are used in the background section BBC, the Guardian, Voice of Russia, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia, NTV News, The Diplomat...and it is at that point I gave up trying to find the primary source the user is talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The primary source referred to is probably the DSB final report, which I have been prepared to use during the last week, especially when it is a 'complementary' rather than 'main' reference. I have been very careful to not interpret it at all. Александр, not I was the one to start to use it extensively, and IMO, very carelessly. I've also tried to get discussion going on talk as to what the limits of use should be here and here - mainly because the report was being mis-used in several ways, which Александр seems either unable, or unwilling to understand. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Александр Мотин: stop editing your comments after they have been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Boomerang block

This has been wasting a few users time now for over a week, whatever use Александр Мотин may have cannot out weigh this massive disruption. A slow edit war, attacks on other users, forum shopping, and god knows what else is way to much to indicate this user is worth retaining.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a huge timesink and must be stopped asap. All these conspiracy theories have been already discussed at the talk page in 2014 and rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Could you, please, point to a "conspiracy theory" since you seem to call my edits like that? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian deserter, Rostov radar record, the theory of Ukrainian Buk. Unless I am mistaken, you have also forgotten to mention the fighter photo, I am sure you will be able to find Russian sources for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian primary radar data was examined by JIT as it was reported by JIT. Where do you see conspiracy? What "theory of Ukrainian Buk" are you talking about? What kind of conspiracy about Ukrainian deserter are you talking about since his identity and belonging to the Ukrainian army were confirmed by Ukrainian servicemen [35]? I really don't understand what you want to say by that. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, I am not here to debate this for the tenth time. My time is valuable, and I am not going to waste it for going through all this propaganda bullshit again. My argument is that nobody wants to do it, and the solution which would save the most time to the community is to block your account asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So why are you calling my edits a "propaganda bullshit"? And why should I be blocked? Because you have no time to explain? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Because you many users time trying to explain to you why the sources you are using are not neutral are pushing Russian propaganda that the international community have long since proven false and rejected. Because you are not here to build an encyclopedia but push Russian propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cut the WP:PA. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That is the accusation I am making, how do I make it without saying what I think they are doing? You are aware they have been blocked by the Russian wiki for this self same fight?Slatersteven (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That's right. Here at ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 00:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. My mistake. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Александр Мотин from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, indefinitely. El_C 00:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note the unblock request which reads: "But why?" — that's it, that the entire unblock request! El_C 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

They've now converted the unblock request into a query pinging me. El_C 01:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that resolution, which I endorse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this will hopefully resolve the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I wish they had just listened to me when I asked them to just drop it. No I do not think it will work, but we can but hope.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that a permanent block seems draconian to me. The topic of this article is contentious. Reviewing the editorial assumptions is an integral and necessary part of editing this article. I noticed that Александр Мотин got too eager, and edited in spite of the established consensus. Never the less, a warning to adhere to wp:agf and wp:consensus may have been sufficient. Heptor (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but they still (as their appeal shows) they do not get what they were doing wrong (I think the above discussion demonstrates that as well). I think it is clear a warning would not have worked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, good shout. Guy (help!) 17:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Have they been unblocked [[36]]?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I kindly ask you to reconsider the sanctions or cancel them. You said that my edits were disruptive. Well check please a "Background" section I recently worked on (before my and the opposing editors' edits and after). Here is a list of significant factual inaccuracies that I have identified for this section and which have been corrected. I understand that my edits in the article may cause a flurry of indignation since many editors are hostile to me, but I don't quite understand why these edits are disruptive [37][38].--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No, editors are not hostile to you. Hell I even warned you to drop this, how is that hostility? If I had wanted you blocked I would have launched an ANI, not let you be stupid enough to re-open one you had already been told was way off the mark. You have literally done nothing but waster time on this issues for over well (it might be close to two) a week.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion (and no, not just me) as to whether or not the partial ban prohibits editing the articles talk page. I think we need clarification on this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarified, they can edit the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The request was for a block, not a topic ban. A topic ban (by virtue of a block from the article talk page, too) may yet be enforced. Let's keep this report open for a while longer so that, if necessary, any further evidence to that effect could be compiled and submitted. Thank you. El_C 15:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think many of us assumed any block would also be to the talk pager as well, nothing I can find says this cannot be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. I understand many assumed a holistic restriction, but I used my discretion. Because I am lenient and hoped it would serve as a wake up call to Александр Мотин, as unlikely as that prospect may be. El_C 16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I was at the stage just before asking for the boomerang. I tend to not ask for blocks until my good faith is exhausted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Range block requested to deal with persistent vandalism at Nick at Nite

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

---

• 2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edits from this range have been vandalizing Wikipedia articles since December. Initially, vandalism from this range consisted of the user randomly changing dates in articles ([39], [40], [41], [42])

Since March, this user has been mainly targeting the Nick at Nite article, changing airtimes ([43], [44]). Over the last few weeks, this IP has consistently been editing the Nick at Nite article by amending the lede to falsely state that Cartoon Network is "the nighttime branding of Adult Swim" (which is false; Adult Swim is the nighttime branding of Cartoon Network) ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49])

The user also did at least one similar edit at Adult Swim (falsely stating that Nickelodeon is "the nighttime branding of Nick At Nite", which is obviously false given the name of the block "Nick at Nite)[50].

You can get an idea of the user's disruption most easily by looking at the edit history of Nick at Nite (link); most of the edit history of the last month consists of the editor making edits and other editors reverting them.

In this IP user's defense, it doesn't seem like anyone warned them about their behavior until this past April[51]. I also gave a set of escalating warnings at User_talk:2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380.

Looking through the relevant edits, it doesn't look like there would be any collateral damage if the /64 was blocked, so I'm requesting that range be blocked temporarily. Much thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems with sourcing the time is it's literally just them looking at the on-screen logo at the time of day; I've restored the usual proper time range of the block (it was way too early for at least a few months, probably because of other past IP disruption making it seem like it was); probably best to institute protected changes on this page rather than playing IP Whack-a-Mole here. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Much thanks for making the other corrections to the page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the IP is at it again. As soon as a frustrated user corrected the false information, the IP came back and restored the false information within 20 minutes. While I would be OK with page protection, I still believe a block on the /64 is in order as the person behind the range has targeted other pages in the past, as I noted in my diffs above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And yet again... Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As one of the users monitoring this situation since yesterday, I think the best course of action to take ASAP would be to lock the page to unregistered users. That would immediately solve the ongoing vandalism issue and then we can move forward with potential blocks. Popfox3 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The article has been protected, and contrary to what I said above, the disruption from the IP since the page protection has been minimal. This thread can probably be closed. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Trolling

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

---

An IP editor has been pushing fringe views at Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some while, as I think we're all aware. I don't know the CIDR subnet and they flatly refuse to register an account, which has been a cause of drama in and of itself.

I would say that [52] is past the point of "enough already".

"None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out."

This in reference to NightHeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor in good standing. I mean, seriously, in that venue, to suggest that another editor is faking extreme liberal bias because they are really alt-right? Seriously?

I propose a topic ban. Guy (help!) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given that the topic is under arbitration enforcement, should this not be at WP:AE? By the way, the IPv6 range is massive, something like a /40, unsurprising as it's Verizon cell. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Black Kite as a general rule while Verizon ranges are massive they typically have relatively low collateral. It’s usually one person causing a ton of disruption because of the dynamic nature of the range, and in most of the “troublesome” Verizon ranges I’m familiar with its 1-2 people. I’ll also give my standard bit about people in the United States and Western Europe being able to create accounts on other ranges fairly easily. Not necessarily advocating for a block at this time, but Verizon ranges this wide have been blocked before over a limited number of bad actors. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW it's clear from looking at the edits at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 that there are at least 2 active editors, one who is obsessed with r&i and another who cares about hyphens and dashes. (They aren't the same because sometimes edits at different IPs interleave.) Maybe 3, if the college football person is different from the dash person. (I personally think the case for topic-banning this particular individual is strong, as is the case for selective blocks from r&i pages, but I have slightly mixed feelings about blocking college football guy and dash guy just for having the bad luck to share a range with r&i guy. Although I suppose they could always just create accounts.) --JBL (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I was saying there’s usually one or two bad actors and a relatively low amount of collateral on Verizon compared to some other ranges this size. There obviously will be some collateral for any range block. The question is if it’s worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        • No, you were clear -- I just thought others might be interested in the specifics of the present situation (at least, to the extent that they can be gleaned just by looking over the recent edit history for that range). --JBL (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I'm no expert in these things, but I think the range is 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. If you look at the Talk:, User talk:, and Wikipedia: namespace contribs on that range, there has been a great number of posts, including a lot of canvassing on user talk pages, all aimed at having the article promote a particular POV as mainstream. I agree the ARCA post against NH (who has probably been the editor who has engaged with this IP range the most) that the OP quotes was, as NH put it, a cockamamie conspiracy theory. A topic ban is long overdue but how do you enforce that against an IP range? After reviewing the contribs of that range in all namespaces, I'm in favor of a range block despite the large range (because I see almost no constructive editing on that range), or any lesser sanction. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dangit Levivich, I help teach you how IP ranges work, and this is how you repay me? Constructively using that knowledge before I can swoop in and show off? creffett (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

So that's his full name -- Dangit Levivich? Fits. EEng 04:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously this is long overdue. A partial block on the article Race and intelligence and its talk-page would be a minimal step toward improving the situation, but the level of shit-stirring by the IP (trying to hand-pick admins to close RfC, trying to goad at least a half-dozen other editors into going to AE, etc.) is really extreme and so I would support something stronger. --JBL (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have done this. El_C 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP ranges.... I'll change it 3 months, which is plenty long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not plenty. This block is for one, single article talk page. An indefinite duration is fine. El_C 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg [53] [54] are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, good spot. I think that removes all doubt. Guy (help!) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. IP has since written at WT:RFAR: The only time I've ever directly interacted with Meisenberg was last June, when we discussed the problems in his biography that the Wikipedia community had failed to address, and I suggested that he raise them with the WMF legal team. Amazing, indeed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I commend all of the detectives on duty in that ten hour period. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocks v. bans

Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is blocked from this article. It seems to me from the above as if an uninvolved admin could also enact a TBAN on race and intelligence broadly construed, for the individual who edits fromt hat range. Guy (help!) 16:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The person behind this account is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. The IP has been disruptive in their admitted quest to WP:RGW on behalf of their colleagues. One of the reasons I support a topic ban in addition to any partial blocks is that the IP's disruption has occurred at many pages: not just the article talk page, but also FTN, ANRFC, ARCA, RFAR, and many user talk pages. This user should be TBANed from discussing this subject on any page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I just went through the discussion, and find a topic ban only fitting for the level of disruption caused. JavaHurricane 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support definitely NOTHERE. Seems to be on Wikipedia to only support their agenda. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• This my usual "formal-bans-on-already-blocked-users-who-we-all-already-know-are-de-facto-bans-so-why-are-we-wasting-time-with-this-again-but-oh-what-the-hell-support-even-though-I-still-think-we-don't-need-to-go-through-all-this-bureaucracy" support vote. --Jayron32 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, LOL! In this case though it's a pageblock only so it does make a difference. Guy (help!) 19:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per above - Given the amount of disruption I see no better solution than topic banning. –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

IP edits done without following Wikipedia sourcing style

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § IP edits done without following Wikipedia sourcing style

 – SemiHypercube 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! I would like some advice on a problem with some IP edits that I have no idea how to address. There are some IPs, apparently based on Tunisia, who constantly edit the numbers of religious (often Jewish) demographics of North African countries. Examples of those articles are Religion in Algeria, History of the Jews in Algeria, Religion in Tunisia, History of the Jews in Tunisia, History of the Jews in Libya, Religion in Morocco, Tunisian people, Tunisia, Maghrebi Jews, and a single one in American Jews. It's not like they are necessarily done in bad faith, but the MO is to simply edit a number, leaving the source in the comment, sometimes editing the same number twice in a row using different, conflicting sources, with some of those of poor quality. I ended up following all the pages above to try to keep an eye on those edits and although some of those edits proved to be constructive (like correcting numbers badly cited from the source), most of them go against the editing style of Wikipedia, ignore the already present sources, and end up making the History and even the displayed data of those pages a complete mess. I (and other users) have tried to contact those IPs in the Discussion page to explain how sources should be handled, but to no avail, as the active IPs eventually stop editing and new similar ones appear with the same MO already described. I don't want to simply revert these edits, but it's getting hard to follow them and check every time how reliable the new numbers might be. I would appreciate if someone could advise me what's the best course of action on how to deal with this. Thank you for your time. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: I think WP:ANI might be the best pick, since this is a conduct issue (I might even move this thread there) SemiHypercube 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Hi! I was unsure what was the best place to place this. If that's indeed the best pick, please do move it. I'm sorry for the hassle. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1:  Done moving the thread SemiHypercube 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1:I'm not seeing an obvious solution to this, unfortunately. As I'm sure you also suspect, these edits are almost certainly coming from one user, but across quite a lot of IP addresses. Without the user creating an account or choosing to engage, it seems fairly pointless communicating on the user talk pages when it's likely you won't catch the same user again. They're mostly in two fairly tight ranges (196.235.26.87/17) and 196.229.227.108/17), both appearing to be standard, dynamic Tunisian mobile phone IPs. However, the disruption is neither serious enough, nor frequent enough, to make me think blocking those ranges is going to be very helpful - even in those tight ranges only about half the activity seems to be that user, so it's a lot of collateral damage versus minimal real benefit. Just continue checking what references you can, and reverting ones you can't verify - it's better to lean towards removing things we're not sure about. As the pages are fairly low traffic, we can contemplate activating pending changes protection on some of them, as is already the case on Tunisia, but the edits are pretty sparse. The user seems fairly well-intentioned, I just can't think of a particularly good way of getting their attention. ~ mazca ^talk 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and attack - block edit privilege

A user Kyle smith2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2 weeks fresh, and safe to say a disgruntled fan (pardon his writing), has been doing disruptive edits and posted an attack (sort of) on my talk page accusing me of being biased, when clearly he is blithely unaware of BLP guidelines. I have posted warnings on his talk page and have explained, best as I could, the improvements I have done on the article he is attacking in terms of peer review, copy-edits and source review from Wikipedia contributors since 2017.

Obviously, the edits this user has made on this page Sarah Geronimo fall under NPOV, and his attack on my work to improve Regine Velasquez's article, is a blow on his inability to proficiently and competently improve his edits based on Wiki guidelines and has resorted to discrediting another page instead.

Although he does make a good point, I am a fan, but isn't that what this platform is about, everyone dedicating their time on improving articles are FANS of the subjects/topics they are writing about. BUT we have to conform to the guidelines (as is the use of PR, Source spot checks, C/Es), instead of attacking someone's talk page.

Among other disruptive edits this user has done:

• List of best-selling albums in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lea Salonga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Probable meatpuppetry, solicitations for paid editing, edit warring by Queenplz

In this ANI, I describe multiple suspicious conduct issues surrounding the Wikipedia editor, "Queenplz".

On 9 April 2020, a discussion thread was created in an Asian nationalist subreddit called "Asian Identity", in which multiple users, including one who claims to have been banned from Wikipedia, solicited help to edit Wikipedia articles, which they said were being edited by white supremacists.

Google archive of suspicious Reddit thread:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Removeddit archive of suspicious Reddit thread, in which usernames are visible:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

^ As we see in the link, the creator of the thread wanted help regarding a dispute between Qiushufang and Gun Powder Ma. And in the comments section, one user solicits help regarding the Genghis Khan article, because he is banned from Wikipedia, and in his opinion, the "physical appearance" section in Genghis Khan's article makes him seem like a "white dude".

A couple of hours after that Reddit thread was created, Qiushufang began making numerous edits on the "physical appearance" Genghis Khan article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200410231336&action=history

On April 11th, YMblanter undid the damage Qiushufang did to the article, and promptly locked it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200422014441&action=history

On April 11th, the account "Queenplz" is created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Queenplz

His April 22nd user page reads:

"Hi, I'm from the U.S and I enjoy researching about history and genetics. I promise to make a much more better efforts in contributing to wikipedia by doing extentive research and allowing everyone to review it. My goal is to present research findings to end controversial disputes in the most useful way. One of my dream is to have a source of income from wikipedia, it would mean a lot to me."

Queenplz's first edit was an edit request (again, Ymblanter had locked the Genghis Khan article) in which he casted doubt on reliably sourced information about Genghis Khan's physical appearance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=950250931

Ever since then, he has persistently made POV edits to the "physical appearance" section of the Genghis Khan article, all revolving around sources that mention his purported reddish hair and blue-green eyes. It is clear from his edits that Queenplz is disgusted by this info, and desperately wants to make it go away; in spite of the fact that it is reliably sourced.

I propose the following:

1.) Queenplz is the individual in the reddit thread who claimed to be banned from Wikipedia, and solicited help from others to edit the Genghis Khan "physical appearance" section, and has indeed received helped from meatpuppets in attempting to censor the article.

2.) Queenplz may be receiving financial support in order to continue his edits on Wikipedia.

3.) The coincidences of his registration just hours after the reddit thread and the edit war, his obsessive focus on the Genghis Khan article from his inception, and also his solicitation for financial support, are all extremely suspicious. The odds that he is not the individual in the Reddit thread who admitted to being banned are exceedingly low. If we assume he is that individual, Queenplz is an unidentified ban evader. If we assume he is not that individual, we must assume he is one of his meatpuppets.

With such marks against the character of Queenplz, can there really be any doubt that his presence here is contraindicated? - Hunan201p (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others. This time he reported me because I reported him of doing neutral point of view (and original research) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

Unable to answer the questions I asked of him six times he decides to report me again.

Hunan201p accusations are ridicolous and always over the top, he has a strong history of edit warring and edit dispute with many editors, even against many admins and respected ones (if you want I can show a long list of disputes, arguements, threats, reports he made on admins and respected editors). He has threatened and reported respected editors and admins before but since this is about myself, I would focus only on myself.

The first time was here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang/Archive

First time he accused me to be a sockpuppet of Qiushufang , he also accused me of being Huaxia, by using his out-of-nowhere evidence of aznreddits, which I have no idea what he was talking about.

To me is very strange, he claims I was Qiufushang or that I was working for him, if that's the case why my 1st and 2nd post against him is suggesting that removes all the pictures he posted. Qiufushang was blatantly helping Hunan201p by providing evidence of pictures of Mongols with red hair (or redder than typical) with blue eyes, I removed the edits of Qiufushang and than all of sudden he reported me as his sockpuppet ( the disccusion can be seen in sockpuppet investigation ) and past history.

All his accusations about Aznreddit nonsense was already mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation of Qiufushang

Second time, he reported Shinoshijak, accused him of being warriorcreaterfighters, and later tried to link me up with being him (Hunan201, also didn't informed me), result is I'm not related to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive

This time is the third time, he nows accuses me of being something else ONLY BECAUSE I reported for him for making many neutral points of views (including original research) edits on the Genghis Khan physical appearance. He cannot answer the questions I asked him for 6 times, because he knows what is he is doing is indeed original research and neutral point of view.

Why are you trying to do the same thing in the first sockpuppet inveestigation. You already accused me of being a meatpuppetry/sock puppet of Qiufushang and the others.

There are several articles about being paid to edit for clients, companies. So I edited that on April 22nd, had no idea I wasn't allow to edit it on the user's page, as I now that it encourages editors to compete.

Please stop making false accusations with such a ridicolous claim, your known for reporting everything that opposes your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others." < - This ia false. Queenplz has never been cleared of meatpuppetry, only of physical proxikitybto Qiushufang. Callanecc [55]| inconclusively closed the SPI investigation] after it received almost no input from any other admins for days, and encouraged me to post more behaviorval evidence.

Another mark on Queenplz's character is that he failed to properly notify me of his noticeboard discussion that he mentions above, but failed to provide an accurate link for. As he admits, he never notified me on my talk page of the complaint he filed against me. Another user actually did that for me, days after it was filed. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

46Lobster

46Lobster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone experienced with deletion discussions and sockpuppetry please have a look at this user's contributions? WP:G4 seems to be an issue, at very very least. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• And WP:G5/WP:BE as well. Just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Totally_TV&action=history . I'll leave this to others; I guess an indefinite block is required. Obvious enough. Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Another sockpuppet: Special:Contributions/428TVFan. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• And another one, Special:Contributions/428TVWatcher. All right. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Quack quack. G4 and G5 deletions, plus salting, used diligently here. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Unprotect Cropnew Page

Unprotect Cropnew This page. 2405:205:1384:3CF6:58F4:5F88:B472:A8A0 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. That page is being targeted by a block-evading user who is not permitted to edit here. Are you that user? --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

More silliness with articles related to Joe Biden

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

---

Can an admin please keep an eye on the history of Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden (the current title as of my writing this, but I expect it will change several times before I hit the send button). It's been moved to three different titles in less than 5 minutes, and there's no sign of the edit-move-warring ending. There was a move discussion barely started, but there's absolutely nothing resembling a consensus, it's just been moved rapidly several times. Can someone just put it back at the original title until such time as the discussion is resolved? Thanks! --Jayron32 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, that is some silliness (it has been moved again). I'd do it, but am I too WP:INVOLVED in these issues? (By the way, only 188 days left until the U.S. elections!) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse move protection (at the wrong title). This is beyond silly. Guy (help!) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Please note Volunteer Marek changed the name twice here and here in about 10 minutes despite an ongoing TP discussion and despite Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). Are sanctions in order? Also, will the title be frozen at the abusive 1RR change? XavierItzm (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  XavierItzm, admins don't get to pick the Right Version™ Guy (help!) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Seems unlikely. As long as a person types in capitals the letter B, L, and P in their edit summary somewhere, they are immune from all sanctions for any behavioral violation.--Jayron32 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the other title got salted too, therefore assuring the desired result. Maybe I'll write an essay on how to game Wikipedia. BTW, I would argue the current title is quite a BLP vio as now you have a Wikipedia article where the female victim's name appears immediately before "sexual assault." XavierItzm (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I considered that possibility. But when both are plausibly BLP violations but neither is a blatant BLP violation, the best we can do for now is just protect it at The Wrong Version^TM and wait for the RM to finish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't much like the current title, but SOMETHING has to be done to stop the move warring. I think someone uninvolved should move protect, with redirects from all the other proposed names, until consensus is reached at the talk page. Or hell freezes over. Whichever comes first. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, there was an ongoing TP discussion when some decided to just skip the line, so editor's likes such as yours no longer count, especially with the salting and what not. XavierItzm (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN, I predict people won't care on November 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I think Tara Reade would care. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I'm referring to Wikipedia editors, long term and drive by. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like your focus is on the election, but this story is about what happened to a woman and it will live on as evidence that mainstream media are often not RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My focus is on the editing of Wikipedia articles, and it's not a stretch to presume that this will die down after the election, much as the crazy editing around Benghazi and Hillary's emails died off in November 2016. Your bias against the "mainstream media" is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: 1RR was broken and a controversial move was done without proper procedure. Why did you leave these violations in place instead of status quo? It's not about "wrong" or "right" versions, it's about clear violations of policy dealing with these situations. Also, citing WP:BLP in moving the article to a title that mentions an office assistant but not a US senator is one of the most desperate cases of WP:CRYBLP, ever. --Pudeo (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I misread MelanieN's comment above as support for the current title no matter what it was; she later clarified her stance in the RM. Anyways, it's been moved back by another admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note: When you bring up the name of a person or persons in an ANI discussion, you are required to notify them. I have done so for people who are named in this discussion but were not already participating in it. For anyone else, please remember to do so in the future.--Jayron32 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, you moved the page after it had already been locked down to stop the move warring. And now the main page and talk page are at different titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And now the main page and talk page are at different titles. Maybe for the better? --JBL (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the talk page problem. (I swear I ticked the box to move the talk page too...maybe I closed the tab too early after confirming that I wanted to delete the redirect for the article and missed a second dialogue for the talk page.) As for moving a protected page, I stand by the edit summary. In general a rapid-fire move war shouldn't end with a title that hasn't achieved talk page consensus, particularly if the new title has potential BLP issues. ~Awilley (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact is a mess too. There are repeated edits in a direction favorable to Biden. The section header does not include "assault", and the 2nd and 3rd sentences from the NYTimes remain against consensus. This article needs admin attention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No it's not, and admins don't have special privileges to decide content. - MrX 🖋 18:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

They can evaluate your arguments, and whether you and others have edited against consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

A missconduct complaint over a fellow user behavior

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

---

the complaint is over MR. Elmoro's comment

https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B9%3AVl5tww7scexssqjv&topic_showPostId=vlf2buv208o4to6u&fbclid=IwAR2jLAaphlTdPLS5s_F2LL5i1E5yg4FEwNaQQ-qGQgSnnp1gURwjS29zIj4#flow-post-vlf2buv208o4to6u

The literal translation is

"I don't have any contribution in this article, but be informed that any person either bosnian,croatian or icelander can edit any article. Wikipedia isn't a place for nationalism, patriotism, or " tatbeel" "

The expression Tatbeel in arabic means political propaganda, Mr. Elmoro assumed that we are motivated by political propaganda to request an edit which was already approved earlier.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shofolofo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. No one here has any authority over Arabic Wikipedia. You need to raise the issue on that Wikipedia. We have nothing to do with that project. --Jayron32 18:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock for 107.242.121.XXX or Page Protection needed at Portland International Airport

Blocked user Luis22pdxedu (talk · contribs) has resumed their edit warring behavior at Portland International Airport, which got them indef-blocked almost two years ago. The article recently expired off of a 1-year semi-protection in order to prevent the disruption but it has since continued since the semi-protection recently expired. They have recently used the following IP addresses:

107.242.121.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I understand that admins are now able to block certain users/IPs from editing specific pages, so maybe that would be the best solution going forward here, because there are also a lot of constructive IP editors frequently at that page (such as myself).

Also, I would give them an ANI notice as the instructions say to do but since their IP address rotates so often I don't think they would receive the message at all.

172.58.47.3 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). The listed IPs have made recent good (sometimes very good, including gnomish) edits to other articles. The monomania seems to be that, contrary to evidence (including but not limited to official websites) and consensus, San Jose International Airport is spelled with an "é". A filter specifically designed to prevent this kind of edit anywhere might be an even better solution than a block, with no collateral damage at all. Narky Blert (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually hadn't thought about an edit filter, but that may be a good idea to stop this as well. They are continuing the disruption once again: [56]. 172.58.47.59 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Page moves by Louismuyalde1234

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

---

• Louismuyalde1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is renaming pages en masse without a discussion. I suspect that this is disruptive editing. Also a likely sock of User talk:Louisborromeo12; see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#ISIS_edits_and_socking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Likely Done No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

is This Page Should be Created?

Hey, Admin is this Book Booming Brand Or Author Harsh Pamnani Eligible for Wikipedia Page? References- https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/marketing-lessons-from-home-grown-brands/article25509106.ece https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/author/harsh-pamnani/ https://www.afaqs.com/news/guest-article/53479_how-brand-bookmyshow-was-born http://everythingexperiential.businessworld.in/article/Demystifying-how-new-age-Made-in-India-brands-were-created-with-Harsh-Pamnani/24-09-2018-160658/ https://insideiim.com/india-is-not-america-the-way-brands-were-created-in-america-can-t-be-built-in-india-harsh-pamnani-author-of-booming-brands-xlri-alumnus https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/harsh-pamnani https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/be-blogs/author/2105/harsh-pamnani 2405:205:1384:3CF6:9C98:B534:F959:D3C3 (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 2405:205:1384:3CF6:9C98:B534:F959:D3C3. You're in the wrong place to ask about this, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You might like to start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I can see that the "article" Harsh Pamnani has never been created. I'll have a look, and give you some advice on your "talk page". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Slur used

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

---

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

---

Can someone take a look at this and perhaps just semi-protect my talk?[57]. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That IP address is blocked, so you probably don't need your talk page semi-protected at this time. However, if they come back (perhaps via another IP address), the protection would probably be warranted. Sorry you experienced those personal attacks (in the redacted edit summaries), they were completely inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

2

The user has returned with an account and editing my talk-page again[58]. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and protected. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Kbmccune

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

I have blocked Kbmccune from mainspace. This can be lifted by any admin with my blessing once they are satisfied that the user has understood the basics of sourcing. Sample edits: [59], [60], [61], [62]. The user is not here often enough that I can see any other easy way to get their attention. Guy (help!) 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I agree the user doesn't seem to be getting how sourcing works, but why a pblock instead of a full block? They're not editing any other namespace, so it's not like this is letting them continue to contribute productively elsewhere. creffett (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, it will stop the problem (weird edits to mainspace), get their attention, but allow them to engage as and when they decide to try again. I think they are actually trying to help, just not working out how. Guy (help!) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, I suppose I'm just wary of pblocks in general, but I'm not exactly going to undo your block. creffett (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I think a lot of indefs for clueless newbies who disrupted mainspace could have been avoided with pblocks - I think they are a great idea. But time will tell, I guess. Guy (help!) 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Trolling

Why is this joe-jobbing bastard not blocked? --Pudeo (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The account only made edits on 20 January and has not edited since. While the account is clearly WP:NOTHERE, the inactivity makes a block pointless. If they return and continue their behavior, they would almost certainly be blocked indefinitely. funplussmart (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area

I am raising concerns that there has been a significant increase in disruptive and nationalist POV editing across a range of Balkans-related articles, namely in:

1. Republic of Ragusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Glina, Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Konavle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. Pelješac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6. U boj, u boj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
7. Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editors in question are:

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

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

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Please note that two or three editors in question are involved in each individual article.

This all happened only in the past few days. In these articles the users in question have made removals of reliably-sourced information, addition of point-scoring/UNDUE text, POV pushing and similar disruptive editing, followed with edit warring. Here are several diffs of some problematic edits:

In the Glina article there was a removal of reliably-sourced information:

• Griboski - 03:28, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 20:33, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Amanuensis Balkanicus - 21:14, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Amanuensis Balkanicus - 21:34, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 21:34, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Republic of Ragusa article:

• WEBDuB - 17:30, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 17:42, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 19:25, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 19:27, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 19:33, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Konavle article:

• Sadko - 19:21, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Pelješac article:

• Sadko - 19:22, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 21:39, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article:

• WEBDuB - 00:35, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 00:51, 28 April 2020 UTC --Tuvixer (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I need to add that I have started a discussion on the Republic of Ragusa article Talk page. Unfortunately the discussion goes on and on in circles and the editors in question resort to name calling. The same behavior can be witnessed in the past and currently on other article talk pages. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Editing and following a somewhat similar scope of articles is not a crime. This report is close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my book. It’s quite ironic to accuse editors who work hard to bring RS and new material (and have been on Wiki for more than 10 years, having hundreds of articles written) of some sort of bad intent by an editor who has been actually edit-warring all over the place, as seen on [63] [64] [65] [66] On Josip Broz Tito, his/her edit-war has been going on for around 5 years now, as far as I can see.

2. Fellow editor Tuvixier has just recently accused total of 8 editors of some sort of ongoing “anti-Croatian” plot, with remarks that there is probably sock puppetry and "bullying" involved (I believe that this is not per Wiki rules?). [67]

3. Please notice that the issue revolves around 1 source by academic and an expert on Republic of Ragusa dr Svetlana Stipčević. I happen to own a hard copy of her work. Editor Tuvixier went with undo without futher explanation here [68] My questions regarding why the source in question is “partisan” or unreliable was ignored several times. [69] [70] New sources were presented in the dispute (by Arthur Evans), those were ignored as well. I did not make further edits to the article since, and most probably won't because of present toxic attitudes, which are mostly based on my ethnic origin...

4. On Glina, Croatia I went with undo because the information lacked WP:RS - local tabloid was used as a source for an old statement made by the current President of Serbia, A. Vucic. That was in my diff as well. The claim is true, of course, but sourcing was terrible and not RS. The other edit was made in regard to lack of WP:NPOV because the wording was not neutral and used weasel words, like that territory was "liberated" (for 100s of older civilians killed in the aftermath of Operation Storm, there was no liberation taking place). Such wording should not be a part of articles within the scope of terrible Yugoslav wars (this was, for some unknown reason, removed again here [71]). U boj, u boj was vandalised by IPs and several fellow editors restored the sourced material, me included. I have not edited Yugoslav Partisans that much, what seems to be the problem there? I have added some sourced material a while back. Things did get heated a bit on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (it is a very emotional topic for most people from the region, as numerous citizens lost family members and relative, and the subject remains an open wound because it was never addressed fully by politicians from modern-day Croatia and several other countries as well), therefore I removed myself from further editing of the same page, per WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot & WP:No angry mastodons.

5. Rather than taking it to the talk page, as I did on Republic of Ragusa or WEBDuB did on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, fellow editor Tuvixier has not been involved in any discussion so far. Therefore I think that this is an attempt to remove several editors who do not agree with his viewpoints, in one stroke. Republic of Ragusa and related subject are a bit complicated; academia in Croatia claims that Ragusan culture (an independent Slavic state, with an identity of its own) is and can be only a part of Croatian culture, other countries think otherwise, and Ragusans or parts of their culture are claimed by Italy, Serbia and sometimes Bosnia. Considering that I am one of only few active editors who reads and knows a thing or two about the topic, I am targeted because of my edits on this topic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I object to this assessment and being lumped in here, because of one edit I made. As I pointed out in this thread, the edit was made for legitimate reasons concerning an unreliable source and a paragraph that was nearly completely unsourced. --Griboski (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph/statement in question remains poorly sourced and lacking NPOV. I do not see why this issue wasn't brought on dispute resolution page? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For point number 4, so much wrong here. My edit was reverted in that article because including Vucic’s quote was apparently “not balanced”??? according to Amanuensis Balkanicus. I took it to the talk page and no one could explain what the problem was. I even added strong sources that in them even include the video of him saying what he said. You never reverted Amanuensis. Also Sadko claims that the town was “acquired” by Croatia which is ridiculous. Multiple RS state it was returned to Croatia as it was occupied territory by an unrecognized government set up in the 90s. Not to mention the hundreds of Croatian civilians that were killed there. Others cleansed. They definitely were liberated. This is precisely the issue with POVs like this. Sadko another editor not even from the Balkans with much experience on Wikipedia stated and observed your POV nationalist edits. His own words. Not mine. The only editor that should not be on the list of 4 is Griboski. Who got caught in the crossfire of the edit wars. That does not delegitimize the other three called out. As you had tried to do, Sadko. Your edit history before you suddenly went archive happy clearly showed your type of edits that aren’t as productive as you claim them to be. But rather agenda driven. A typical problem with Balkan articles. For example removing the “Croatian” ethnicity from leads of historical figures pages due to Wiki:Ethnicity yet while editing Serbian figure pages, you did not do the same. I saw this wether you want to claim “hounding” or not. Doesn’t matter how “new” I am to Wikipedia or how old you are. That doesn’t excuse what you do. PortalTwo (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Repeating again and gain the same argument of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any evidence is not going to make it any more valid. The fact that user Sadko has "been on Wiki for more than 10 years" is even more troubling. Why are long time user engaging in such disruptive editing as seen in the articles above? I need to say that I am not happy that it has come to this. I am not happy that I need to witness constant disruptive editing. The edit warring goes on and on, users in question do not try to seek consensus when reverted, only do they stop after being warned or when a administrator intervenes - Ad Orientem - 00:45, 29 April 2020 UTC. After all the disruptive edits, user Sadko "engages in a discussion" by asking this question "What seems to be wrong?..." I think that everything that was done was wrong. From edit warring, not trying to start a discussion and reach a consensus to POV pushing and point-scoring/UNDUE text. This is just an example on how, when a discussion is started, it is doomed from the beginning, when user Sadko is involved.

2. It is completely false that I have "accused total of 8 editors". As can be seen above there are 4 editors mentioned. User Sadko is intentionally leaving out this: [72] This attempt to distort the facts is another example of disruptive behavior and bad faith. If I have accused someone of some "“anti-Croatian” plot", can user Sadko provide any evidence to back his claim?

3. It is not true that "the issue revolves around 1 source". The edits on Republic of Ragusa article started with this WEBDuB - 17:30, 28 April 2020 UTC - the source provided is from the year 1875. Then this WEBDuB - 17:42, 28 April 2020 UTC - adding the following sentence "The documents were also written in Cyrillic script." This is misleading because the source provided states that a linguist "...made a handwritten copy..." of a "Lectionary in Cyrillic characters", giving no connection to the Ragusan state. I have no problem with adding such content, if the provided sources are reliable. The fact is, as I have explained, that user WEBDuB clearly made and edit that is misleading and made false interpretation of the source, which seems to be intentional. This goes on and I can explain in detail if needed. Trying to place me in a "box", in which, if I would found myself in, even by accident, I would be ashamed for the rest of my life, is insulting.

4. Now on the subject of Glina. The users in question claim that the source is a "tabloid" when in fact, dnevnik.hr is the portal/website of NOVA TV. How is dnevnik.hr a "local tabloid" was never explained. This is another example how user Sadko superficially, without giving any explanation dismisses a source that she/he does not like. The same content is present and sourced in the article about Aleksandar Vučić. Now user Sadko claims the following: "The claim is true, of course, but sourcing was terrible and not RS." Why did she/he then remove everything from the article? Sadko - 20:33, 28 April 2020 UTC Does a user who has "been on Wiki for more than 10 years" know about "[citation needed]". Or just google "Vučić Glina", there is plenty of sources for example: [73] from N1, a CNN International partner and affiliate in Croatia, and more [74], [75], [76] and even one in English [77]. All this in just one quick Google search. Not to mention that the Wikipedia article about Aleksandar Vučić has already two sources in it. About the allegedly neutral edit removing "liberated", I have to say that respecting internationally recognized borders, that were first established in 1945 and 1946 and later approved when the constituent republics of former Yugoslavia became independent, is neutral and stating something different is a clear POV. I have mentioned articles U boj, u boj, Yugoslav Partisans and Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia because also in them there are/were disruptive edits, in the last few days, involving the same users. Like in the other articles that are in this report.

5. "Rather than taking it to the talk page, as I did on Republic of Ragusa or WEBDuB did on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, fellow editor Tuvixier has not been involved in any discussion so far." This is untrue, I have started the discussion on the Republic of Ragusa Talk page [78] as explained above, in my last comment here. User Sadko went on calling names "You have no idea what you are talking about." and tried to falsely present the provided source. Another example of the same behavior.

6. I have to point out that, regarding user Griboski, I have not observed the same disruptive behavior with him, as with the other three users in question. There is only one edit in the Glina article, still it was made. I see now that she/he still claims "unreliable source" argument.

Roxy the dog Edit Warring and Personal Attacks (again)

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

---

After a 24 hour block in February for Edit Warring and one back in September 2018 for personal attacks, Roxy the dog is continuing the same actions again.

Edit Warring: Blatant 3RR violation on Coffee enema, reverting good faith edits without further discussion on the talk page. Now, this is not to say there is not a modicum of fault with the other editor, however Roxy should know better.

Personal Attack: I think this diff says it all

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Roxy the dog has a massive history of egregious personal attacks, but nothing will be done because the "community" likes his POV.
  • Fuck off from this page[79]
  • Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. [80]
  • Now fuck off from this page. [81]
  • Doubleplus fuck off.[82]
  • Really fuck off. [83]. -Pudeo (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    You know, sometimes personal attacks are just because someone is stressed out and needs a break from Wikipedia. Occasionally we give them one. Not everything is about POV. – bradv🍁 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• No evidence of of a "blatant" 3RR violation. Milesaway0 was engaging in long-term edit warring, but we don't blame other parties for following WP:ONUS policy when another refuses to. At one point, Roxy had two reverts within 24 hours, but never more. Considering that part was misleading already, I'd definitely want to see the context of the personal attack diff to see what was going on. That said, it was from April 25 with nothing going on currently, so this looks somewhat stale too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• • After several edit confliccts, no, Rich Smith, your diff does not say it all. You need to also read the section above your own complaint — you know, the one named "Dad's funeral". And then try to dredge up some fellow feeling. Context is all, and tunnel vision is no good in these horrible days. Or, alternatively, go fuck yourself. Roxy, I'm very sorry for your loss. Bishonen | tålk 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC).

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

Or, alternatively, go fuck yourself. Keeping it classy Bish. PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with reorganising pages

Hi,

As discussed at Talk:Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer)#Dave_Stewart_(English_musician), one user argued that the article should have been moved to Dave Stewart but was unable to do so due to being unable to move the existing Dave Stewart page (currently a dab) to Dave Stewart (disambiguation), since the latter already exists.

(I've had similar problems before that were solved by an admin, so I assume this is a moderately common situation).

The page was then moved to Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer) to get round this- which I didn't agree with, since the whole point that had just been argued was that"Dave Stewart" was the most appropriate title.

Any help in solving this (and input into the discussion at the talk page) would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I marked the disambiguation page for deletion and it was declined; the admin (EurekaLott) suggested I use the WP:RM process because it was a potentially controversial move. I thought of it as housekeeping, but I get it. So I was WP:BOLD and moved the page to Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer) because it is more appropriate than its previous title, which was David A. Stewart. That said, Dave Stewart without the dab makes the most sense, and I will seek consensus on the talk page. JSFarman (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zakawer: 2013 Egyptian coup

I'm raising concerns about the editor User:Zakawer's editing on the subject of Egyptian politics. During 2016, this editor systemically and against consensus sought to remove any and all references to the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état as being a "coup". There is a clear consensus on major pages related to Egyptian politics and coups that the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état was in fact a "coup" (and there is no disagreement among academics and RS that it was a coup). There are two relevant previous admin actions regarding this editor on this exact topic:

• Early July 2016: Blocked by the admin User:Darkwind who said Zakawer's "disregard of the consensus(es) in this topic area is both blatant and willful". [84]
• Late July 2016: After repeated edit-warring on this subject, Zakawer took a voluntarily absence when he was brought to the admin noticeboard, and was warned at the time by the admin User:EdJohnston that he "may be blocked if they make any further reverts on the topic of the 2013 political events in Egypt (revolution, protests, coup d'état or whatever) without a prior talk page consensus."[85]

From late July 2016 to Feb 2020, Zskawer kept low-key and appears to have largely avoided the subject matter. However, in February 2020, he started to edit prolifically again on the topic that got him in trouble. He is again POV pushing and editing against consensus on any and all articles that make any reference whatsoever to a coup in Egypt. This is an incomplete list of edits from 7 March 2020 to today where the editor removes "coup" or related language:

• Canada–Egypt relations[86]
• Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état[87]
• Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)[88]
• Martial law[89]
• Police state[90]
• Capital punishment in Egypt [91]
• Emergency law in Egypt[92]
• Coup d'état[93]
• List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010[94][95]
• Egypt[96]
• 2018 Egyptian presidential election[97]
• Third Square[98]
• Mada Masr[99]

There are more problematic edits in the edit history but that should be sufficient to show that there is again a serious systematic problem. It's not feasible for other editors to have to follow him around across dozens of pages to make sure that the language is compliant with already-established consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)